Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the minister for the intervention and for recognising the desire to make the system better. One of the comments in the letter to the committee from the minister is about the need for more

“due diligence on the implications and risks associated with”

the options

“prior to making a final decision”

on how the IT system will be transferred to the SFC. I take the minister’s point that it is about an IT system, but, ultimately, it is also fair to say that the IT system in question is pretty integral to the delivery of apprenticeships. That is the point.

Amendment 120, in the name of Daniel Johnson, requires the SFC to report on the amount of funding provided, including

“in relation to apprenticeship frameworks, the level of funding provided for an individual Scottish apprenticeship”

and seeks to address the concern around contribution rates being frozen and stakeholders worrying that that could all get lost within an organisation that has a lot else on. As the minister said in his letter, it will require time to be able to do that. Daniel Johnson’s amendment seeks to protect some of that process, make it very transparent and help people to understand where money is changing hands, including between employers and training providers.

Before I conclude my remarks, I note that we will support many other amendments in the group, and where we do not, it is likely that we support the intention of the amendments—there are too many to name in the interest of time—but we have amendments in either my name or Daniel Johnson’s name that seek to do something very similar.

Amendment 124, in the name of Daniel Johnson, sets out that

“The Council must secure that . . . providers of high quality training and learning may continue to receive payments from the Council (on the same basis as post-16 education bodies)”,

and would require a formal transition scheme to be arranged so that no learner employer is stranded mid-programme.

Amendment 196, in the name of Daniel Johnson, would require ministers to lay a statement before the Scottish Parliament to set out the anticipated costs of transferring apprenticeship functions and confirm that the funding for delivery of apprenticeships will not change as a result of the transfer.

In relation to both those amendments, I note that the minister’s letter to the committee of 24 November outlines that transfer costs have again been upgraded, this time by approximately £2 million. The minister also states in the letter that no decisions have been taken about some of the transfer options associated with the bill, including decisions on IT, as the minister set out earlier. One of the options outlined in the letter suggests that the transfer would not complete until 2029.

Everybody wants the system to work for the end users—the learners, the people who need the skills and the people who deliver them. That is what the amendments seek to make happen. Therefore it is disappointing that it would appear that, yet again, a bill has come before Parliament for which the diligence work to get the systems right—including determining the cost of transferring staff, which I have not touched on yet—has yet to be done, and we are now looking at delays in commencement as a result. One would expect that for a bill of this sort, if the end user is the minister’s focus, those issues would already have been addressed. Instead, it appears that we have a bill that is not quite ready or fit for purpose.

I will speak to my amendments in the group. Amendment 198 would require ministers to engage with trade unions on the transfer of functions or staff, restructuring and material changes to terms and conditions. Ministers would have to establish formal joint groups and share information with them and report on that engagement to Parliament. Those are fairly standard requirements that would protect the staff who work in those organisations. The staff I have spoken to are worried, not just about great inertia in the system resulting from the structural change that the Government is proposing, but about the lack of consultation and engagement in the process to date to ensure that their rights and conditions are protected. Amendment 198 seeks to ensure that that engagement happens.

Amendment 200 would require that ministers set out a “pre-implementation report”. That is crucial because of the uncertainty that trade unions, including Unison and the Public and Commercial Services Union, and others have highlighted to members individually and to the committee as a whole.

Amendment 199 would require the Scottish Government to set out the functions and roles that will be transferred. If the Government did not want to do that in advance of royal assent, it would have to do so as soon as possible afterwards, to give a level of stability to staff. The staff are essential for the system to work, and are working day in, day out for this to happen, but they do not yet know whether they will be working for one organisation or another, or, indeed, whether they will be working in SDS under a managed contract with the SFC, because the system is not quite ready to transfer.

Amendments 208, 209, 211 and 210 would provide that regulations on staff and functions transfer can happen only after the consultation, a pre-implementation report and a statement on the uninterrupted processes and—crucially—the uninterrupted provision of apprenticeships.

I move amendment 124.

Amendment 204, in my name, would set out that ministers must direct that the body administering funds for student support in FE,

“must ensure that advice ... is provided in person (if requested by the person applying for ... such funds), ... is reasonably available at the place of further education, ... is adequately resourced and has regard ... to the needs of learners at risk of exclusion, including low-income students, student carers, disabled learners and rural and island learners”.

If a new body is to administer funds, it must build on the key unique selling points of the way in which they are currently provided in further education.

The amendment further requires that the body

“report annually to the Scottish Ministers on whether the provision of advice met the conditions ... and what action, if any, the body or person intends to take to ensure access to advice about the provision of funds”.

That is to recognise the difference in the way in which student support funds have been given to students studying different courses across the piece and the fact that college students have traditionally been able to access it a bit differently from university students. Colleges and college students are keen to preserve the good bits of that rather than lose them in the transition.

Amendment 205 requires the SFC and SAAS to,

“within 12 months of the provisions in Part 1 and Part 3 coming into force, jointly prepare a report on the provision of maintenance support”.

The report should

“compare core maintenance support entitlements across further education, higher education, national training programmes and apprenticeships, ... assess distributional impacts on protected groups and socio-economic disadvantage, including by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation quintile and care-experienced status”

and

“set out options for improving equity and adequacy, including indicative costs and implementation considerations.”

The report should be

“published and laid before the Scottish Parliament”

and the Government should respond to it.

The effect and purpose of the amendment is to look at the maintenance system in the round and create a mechanism to review it. The bill proposes to change tertiary education in various ways, so it is an appropriate juncture to consider the sorts of maintenance support that are available to students attending or undertaking any post-16 education. Amendment 205 was lodged to test the Government’s intentions or commitment to considering whether maintenance support needs to be reviewed.

I press amendment 127, but, in the light of the minister’s comments about amendment 195, I will support his amendment 17 and will not move amendment 195.

I welcome the minister’s clarification on that point. In that case, I will move amendment 174 when the time comes.

In the meantime, I am prepared to work with the Government. I have made it clear that the council must have representation from students and trade unions across the different bodies. I hope that the minister will help to deliver an amendment to that effect at stage 3, so I will not move amendment 171 at this point.

I have been pulling up the exact detail of amendment 113. Although I appreciate the conversation that we had last week on fair work practices, does the minister accept that there must be a way of determining clearly and transparently whether the money leaving the Government and the public purse and going to organisations is providing value for money and whether those organisations are adopting fair work practices? How else, if not through amendment 113, does the Government plan to assure that that is the case?

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.

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.

I thank the minister for the intervention and for recognising the desire to make the system better. One of the comments in the letter to the committee from the minister is about the need for more

“due diligence on the implications and risks associated with”

the options

“prior to making a final decision”

on how the IT system will be transferred to the SFC. I take the minister’s point that it is about an IT system, but, ultimately, it is also fair to say that the IT system in question is pretty integral to the delivery of apprenticeships. That is the point.

Amendment 120, in the name of Daniel Johnson, requires the SFC to report on the amount of funding provided, including

“in relation to apprenticeship frameworks, the level of funding provided for an individual Scottish apprenticeship”

and seeks to address the concern around contribution rates being frozen and stakeholders worrying that that could all get lost within an organisation that has a lot else on. As the minister said in his letter, it will require time to be able to do that. Daniel Johnson’s amendment seeks to protect some of that process, make it very transparent and help people to understand where money is changing hands, including between employers and training providers.

Before I conclude my remarks, I note that we will support many other amendments in the group, and where we do not, it is likely that we support the intention of the amendments—there are too many to name in the interest of time—but we have amendments in either my name or Daniel Johnson’s name that seek to do something very similar.

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.