Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will finish my point, then I will be happy to do so. In the minister’s letter to the committee, he sets out the future responsibilities of the redesigned funding body. He says:

“We would aim to launch this new capability by April 2029.”

The minister goes on to say that

“SDS would provide a time-limited managed service for two years beyond April 2027, giving the SFC the time to build and prove the new system while protecting continuity for learners and providers.”

The minister, in his letter to the committee, recognises that the SFC is not ready. If the SFC were ready, the Government would not be considering that option to delay the rejig of quangos.

Amendment 121 is about transparency. The Scottish Government states that it has not received a breakdown of the apprenticeship levy revenue that has been collected since 2020-21, but it is possible to calculate that the Scottish Government receives more from the levy than it spends on skills and interventions.

The fact is that Scottish levy-paying firms cannot easily see how their levy is being used, and some fear that they are being short-changed. Amendment 121 stipulates that

“As soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year, the Scottish ministers must publish and lay before the Scottish Parliament a statement setting out the amount of funding received in that financial year ... as a result of the apprenticeship and skills levy”.

Amendment 139 is specifically about future-proofing and addressing a concern about continuity in learning. In recent months, various institutions have had to take some difficult decisions that have been catastrophic for courses, students and staff. Amendment 139 seeks to empower the Scottish Government, through the Scottish Funding Council, to help organisations to recognise that there could be disruption to continuity of provision and to plan for that. I struggle to understand why the minister does not think that that is a good thing.

I thank the minister for that answer—yes, it does. I look forward to the minister’s engaging with me, Stephen Kerr and other members to pursue amendments in that regard.

Daniel Johnson’s amendment 143 would require assessment of the quality

“of programmes of training for employment, work-based learning and training of apprentices”.

Amendment 142 would require financial scrutiny to be carried out, including an assessment of value for money. The Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005 already requires the quality of fundable bodies to be assessed. Amendment 142 simply seeks to mirror that requirement for other bodies that will be funded under the bill. It would apply equivalency in scrutiny and transparency to all providers that receive public apprenticeship or skills funding from the SFC, not just colleges and universities, including private training providers and managing agents, thereby following the public pound.

Colleges Scotland has said that, if the SFC is to fund a much wider delivery base after absorbing Skills Development Scotland’s functions, the whole base should face proportionate financial and quality scrutiny.

Again, I listened carefully to the minister’s comments on amendment 142. I do not think that the amendment as currently drafted contains the complication that the minister set out, or that it is unclear on the requirements. I will, therefore, be moving that amendment.

On amendment 144, in the name of Ross Greer, I thank him for his response to my intervention about ONS classification; I welcome the clarity in that regard.

I will probably not move amendments 138 to 140, in order that we can discuss and pursue reporting amendments at stage 3 with members, including the minister.

Forgive me for sneaking in as you were concluding. I want to check the meaning of subsection (2)(b) of the section that amendment 123 proposes to insert in the bill:

“the persons to whom such funding has been allocated”.

Is it your understanding that the report would break down the spend to that level of detail, or do you mean persons in the sense of training providers, as opposed to individuals? Would the report say, for example, that Pam Duncan-Glancy did such-and-such an apprenticeship?

Amendment 127 would make provision for the publication of information relating to payments to private and independent providers, broken down by Scottish public authority and other bodies, and require ministers to explain any significant change in distribution and increases or decreases in payments made. That touches on amendments 113 and 73, as well. The Educational Institute of Scotland has said on the record and in correspondence that it is alarmed that the student support part of the bill appears to streamline the way in which private and independent training providers can be treated as fundable bodies. The EIS was told by the bill’s drafters that those provisions were just tidying up the legislation, but it feels that the change opens the door to skills money being diverted from colleges towards private providers, which are able to increase their profit margins without offering any transparency. The EIS argues that that would accelerate competition and hollow out college provision in areas such as construction, engineering and care. Amendment 127 seeks to address that.

Amendment 195, in my name, sets out that the sharing of information on socioeconomic disadvantage, such as eligibility for free school meals, care experience and residence in one of the 20 per cent lowest-ranked areas in the Scottish index of multiple deprivation, is a key factor. I have highlighted those issues in order to add coherence to the system and support articulation so that bodies can get support to where it is needed.

Everyone in this room is keen to address the issue of widening access to all areas of tertiary education, so that people who are furthest from the labour market get the support that they need. That is what amendment 195 seeks to ensure.

I move amendment 127.

Absolutely. I agree that experts in the field are crucial. The fact is that I consider staff who work in the system and students who engage with and are educated in it to be experts, too.

I should also point out that amendment 174, in my name, seeks to bring in those with

“capacity in ... research and innovation”—

in other words, the expertise that John Mason talked about when he referred to research in the area. Financial due diligence is another skill that I know the member will be very keen to have on the council, given the council’s role in that respect and the member’s interest in that matter.

I do not think that the amendments in my name, which seek to ensure that those people have places—and rightfully so—on the council, preclude others, because, as the member has pointed out, there are other spaces on the council. I am just seeking to protect spaces for students, apprentices and trade unions on the council.

Amendment 175, in the name of my colleague Daniel Johnson, seeks to ensure that the chair of the skills board that he proposes be established also sits on the Scottish Funding Council, in order to retain the link between the organisation that will distribute the funds for skills and the sector that will deliver those skills, and employers that represent some of that sector. I hope that the amendment will receive support from across the committee.

I move amendment 172.

I am sorry—you are correct. I will press amendment 172. My screen is frozen; I am trying to fix it.

On amendment 103, will the member explain the 75 per cent figure and what the current split is, so that we can get an understanding of that?

Amendment 181 is in the name of my colleague Daniel Johnson. It would replace the apprenticeship committee established by the bill with an industry skills board that would include representatives from levy-paying businesses, SMEs, colleges, independent training providers and trade unions.

The skills board would be led by a senior figure from industry and would have a defined role with regard to apprenticeship standards, using the SAAB terms of reference as a starting point. It would strengthen employer input to and endorsement of the strategic direction of apprenticeships and work-based learning pathways, thereby supporting the apprenticeship system to meet the needs of industry. It would ensure the alignment of apprenticeships with economic growth and job opportunities. It would set and maintain the guiding principles for the core requirement of apprenticeship frameworks that they must produce a competent, highly skilled and flexible workforce.

It would inform and make recommendations on the priorities for development and continuous improvement activities, including in the area of equalities. It would provide advice on relevant matters affecting employers and on emerging policy that is likely to impact on the strategic direction of apprenticeships, such as apprenticeship levies, for example. It would act as a custodian for approved apprenticeship frameworks on behalf of industry, and it would be an ambassador for apprenticeships with other businesses and with young people. It would also make an annual assessment of skills gaps to assess annual modern apprenticeship demand and, crucially, make binding recommendations on grant allocations on the basis of those assessments.

I will now move on to three amendments in the group that are in my name. My amendment 183 would ensure that the membership of the apprenticeship committee would include someone representing small and micro businesses. My amendment 185 would add a provision to ensure that someone who is doing an apprenticeship or a college course was represented on the apprenticeship committee.

My amendment 193 would require the Government to report within a year on what support should be provided to enable persons who are undertaking a course of education or training and who are not in a paid sabbatical role to become a member of the council or of a committee of the council. Those would be people who, as other amendments would require, should be represented on the council. It is important that people who are asked to take on roles with such a level of responsibility are supported to do so.

Finally, I will speak to Monica Lennon’s amendment 186, which would make it clear that the council must include trade and industry representation on the apprenticeship committee. It is important to ensure that bodies that represent professions, such as those in the electrotechnical sector, where safety is of the highest priority, are included on the committee as trade and industry representatives. Without the involvement of recognised bodies that are connected to electrotechnical apprenticeships, there is a significant danger that any changes that are made to safety and technical operations could be overlooked, and that might lead to dangers throughout a young person’s apprenticeship. Bodies such as the Scottish Joint Industry Board for the electrical industry in Scotland, which includes representation for employers, Scotland’s Electrical Trade Association for the electrical contracting industry—SELECT—and the industry trade union Unite the Union, would be the ideal representative bodies to ensure that those who are undertaking the electrical installation apprenticeship programme are protected going forward.

I hope that the amendments meet with support from across the committee.

I move amendment 181.