Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate the minister’s point. I do intend to support amendments 6 and 7, but does the minister recognise that our saying that we accept them at this point, in the absence of any other option, is not a reason for him not to engage and not lodge an amendment to the bill at stage 3 that adds in those who represent trade unions and learners?

No problem at all, convener.

Amendment 48 requires the Government to set out a new funding model for colleges. The proposal has been discussed for a number of years now, with colleges crying out for clear direction and for flexibilities in the funding model—indeed, for a new funding model altogether.

We have heard about the tripartite group that has been set up, and some systems and flexibilities have been offered to colleges, but, in the evidence that the committee has heard, that Audit Scotland has collected and that the Scottish Funding Council report has highlighted, those flexibilities have not put colleges on the stable footing necessary for them to continue as the skills engines of our regions and, indeed, the opportunity centres for young people and career switchers.

For any system to work in the way that the Government has envisaged, we absolutely have to sort out the crisis facing Scotland’s colleges before we can expect them to deliver any structural change—that is, change of the sort that the bill sets out. There has been concern about diversion from the front line, diversion from purpose and principle, and diversion from addressing the real skills needs across the country.

Amendment 48 seeks to make it clear that such diversion cannot continue beyond a year following royal assent, should the bill pass at stage 3. It would be perfectly reasonable to expect the Government to deliver the promised funding model within 12 months of the bill’s royal assent, if it were to pass.

I thank the minister for setting out his thoughts and concerns. I agree that the funding model must be led by the sector—indeed, the sector is doing everything that it can to lead the way and it has been looking to the Government to pick up the mantle on that, which I do not think has happened yet.

I understand the minister’s support for Miles Briggs’s amendment 49; Labour members will support that amendment, too, as it is important. However, amendment 48 gives a slightly broader view of the model that could be considered, and I think that both amendments are worthy of support from the committee. My amendment 48 sets out the need for a review of funding models in the round—that could include the credit-based system, but there are other ways of funding. We have heard about colleges looking for funding—or, more accurately, having to chase funding—from different sources. The Government decides to create new strategies, plans or ideas that have skills attached to them, and colleges then have to try to chase funding to deliver some of the skills. That delivers neither the longevity nor the sense of purpose or direction that colleges need; instead, it leaves them chasing smaller pots of funding.

Therefore, there is an argument to be made for supporting both amendments, as, together, they look at both the credit-based funding model and the wider funding models that colleges sit within, and cover the question of how colleges can deliver the skills to meet all the Government’s economic strategies, public sector priorities and so on.

I think that both amendments should get the committee’s support, and I will press amendment 48.

We have probably covered it significantly, so, with that, I will close.

I will start with amendment 82, if that is all right. It would define foundation apprenticeships as a

“Scottish apprenticeship delivered as part of the senior-phase education pathway, delivered in partnership with local authorities, schools, colleges of further education, and employers.”

Members will be aware of the evidence that we took and the concerns, including from the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, local authorities and others, that foundation apprenticeships were not significantly addressed in the bill, which they considered a bit of an omission. I seek to address that by defining foundation apprenticeships in the bill.

Amendment 81 is the paving amendment for the definition of foundation apprenticeships.

Amendment 76 would make it clear that apprentices doing foundation apprenticeships are not employed, which goes back to the point that I made to Willie Rennie.

Amendment 92 would provide that the Scottish Funding Council

“must ensure that foundation apprenticeships ... are delivered through ... partnership ... with local authorities”

and that there must be a report on uptake with details of who accesses foundation apprenticeships, their region, whether they have any disability and information relating to the index of multiple deprivation. Such details would help us clearly understand the demographics and the way that people access foundation apprenticeships, in order that we can ensure that all young people access the opportunities that are available through them.

On a couple of other amendments in the group—

I am happy to.

I agree whole-heartedly with the points that Ross Greer has just made, but why has the term “sufficient” been used in the amendment, as opposed to linking the provision directly with the minimum or living wage?

Will the minister take an intervention?

On defining “foundation apprenticeships” in the bill, I understand concerns about the name. The minister has set out that there are regulation-making powers to change what they are called. However, my concern is that, if foundation apprenticeships are not mentioned in the bill, there may not be a mechanism for the SFC to provide funding to local authorities or schools to continue to offer such apprenticeships. Does the member share that concern?

Minister, I did not mean to cut you off mid-flow. I just thought that you were moving on to another amendment.

I have the same concerns about amendments 6 and 7 as I do about amendment 5 in the previous group, which relate to the wording:

“such other persons as the Council considers likely to be affected.”

It is hard to imagine that apprentices or staff would not be affected by changes to the frameworks or that framework changes would not benefit from the input of apprentices or trade unions and staff. On that basis, can the minister explain why they were not included in amendments 6 and 7?