Seòmar agus comataidhean

The minister has made it pretty clear that he is a strong supporter of foundation apprenticeships, and I am sure that everybody who provides them in the educational world will have heard that commitment. Given the active debate around work-based learning in schools, including foundation apprenticeships, it would probably not be right to put a definition in the bill. That would not prevent us from perhaps revisiting the issue in the future, once that debate is settled. It is important that we value work-based learning and allow a degree of flexibility for that debate to continue.

With that, unless anybody else wishes to intervene, I will conclude. I will not press amendment 26.

Amendment 26, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 76 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].

My three amendments in the group—amendments 26 to 28—revolve around two central points. The first is that an apprentice should be employed—an apprenticeship should be an occupation. The second, as amendment 27 refers to, is about apprentices achieving “the competence required” rather than receiving training. Those are important and significant differences.

The concern of the amendments is the desire to protect the credibility of apprenticeships by ensuring that they do not stray into the space of being simply about training but are actually apprenticeships, with the important relationship between employer and employee built into them. Being part of a team, following the discipline of the workplace and being important to the integrity of the organisation, the company and its success are all part of that experience.

Block training or programme-led models not only involve significant periods outside the workplace and disrupt learning and the opportunity to understand a business or working environment; they also have an impact on the logistics of the organisation and the employer, which involves pulling in other members of staff to fill the gaps.

I interpret section 4 to be about apprentices’ ability to turn up, take orders and follow the conduct of the organisation in addition to the skills that are achieved. You could argue that those are part of the skill set, but it is worth drawing it out to make sure, because the relationship that an apprentice has with their supervisor, manager and employer is a particular benefit of an apprenticeship and a really important part of understanding what the future workplace is like, which is what differentiates apprenticeships from other forms of learning. Perhaps this is the disciplinarian in me coming out, but that is why behaviour is an important part of the experience and why it should be specifically referenced.

I move amendment 26.

The minister has made it pretty clear that he is a strong supporter of foundation apprenticeships, and I am sure that everybody who provides them in the educational world will have heard that commitment. Given the active debate around work-based learning in schools, including foundation apprenticeships, it would probably not be right to put a definition in the bill. That would not prevent us from perhaps revisiting the issue in the future, once that debate is settled. It is important that we value work-based learning and allow a degree of flexibility for that debate to continue.

With that, unless anybody else wishes to intervene, I will conclude. I will not press amendment 26.

Amendment 26, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 76 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].

If you are specifying that training is required, that should improve clarity and ensure that individuals have greater understanding of the requirements. However, you are not providing any greater clarity about what is permitted in practice and what is not, because the guidance is already established. All that you are talking about is placing the guidance on a statutory footing, so the bill will not provide any more clarity. Is that not the case?

My second point is about the General Teaching Council for Scotland, which, as you will have heard, is almost saying that the bill is piecemeal and that we need to take a broader look at safeguarding and child protection, because most of that is dealt with through guidance and is not on a statutory footing. What is your answer to that?

I make it clear that, as Mr Johnson knows, I am a supporter of the bill. I just think that it is important to ask difficult questions.

Thanks very much.

That comes to the nub of it. We already have guidance, so there should be all the clarity that we are looking for. We are talking about putting the guidance on a statutory footing. We have seen that doing that sometimes leads to mission creep and overcaution, with people going further than is required in order to ensure that they are covered and are not flouting the legislation. Is there not a danger that, because of that fear, we will make people much more cautious at critical moments when intervention is required, which could cause mission creep?

The concern is not about recording incidents or what the guidance says about what is appropriate for restraint but about the extra caution that could come from legislating that might endanger children.

The bill’s provisions do not extend the right to receive support to those leaving care prior to the age of 16. Why is that?