Seòmar agus comataidhean

Convener, before we proceed, I am sure that other members of the committee would like to join me in congratulating you on your award last week. Personally, I think that it was the nominations from George Adam and me that got you over the line, but whatever—we sincerely congratulate you on your award.

Foundation apprenticeships are catered for separately in the group of amendments on work-based learning rather than the group on apprenticeships, so amendment 26 would not affect them. However, it is important for the other apprenticeships to have that employment status embedded in them.

Moreover, rather than just receiving training or completing the course, apprentices would have to achieve competence, which would reinforce the integrity of the apprenticeship model and ensure that the perceived standard of the apprenticeship was maintained.

There is a reference in amendment 28 to the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Scottish Government’s fair work first policy, which is an integral part of the employment status that is proposed in the amendments.

I have a couple of amendments in the group, amendments 24 and 25. I am pleased that the minister is supporting amendment 25 to try to achieve a whole-system approach and ensure that the system is connected to the wider economy. We know that there is a gap between the demand and the supply. We should be trying to close the gap and ensure that the shape of the offer meets industry and employers’ needs. It is great that the minister is supporting amendment 25.

However, amendment 24 is the crunchy one. It seeks to reintroduce an industry-led body that is equivalent to what we have now, the Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board. The amendment seeks to address some of the anxieties that exist among not all, but quite a lot, of employers, who feel that the bill is unnecessary, that it is a distraction and, more importantly, that it will lead to a dilution of the voice of employers. I appreciate that a committee will be set up as part of the Funding Council, but I think that having an industry-led body with an independent status that has an oversight role for the decisions that would be made by the Funding Council and the rest of the system would address some of the concerns. I urge the minister to support amendment 24. It is part of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s recommendations that there should be a statutory framework that enables employer-led oversight.

I understand the minister’s explanation, and I am grateful to him for providing such a detailed explanation.

I understand the desire to have flexibility in the definitions, but the bill gives us a rare opportunity to influence the shape of apprenticeships as a whole. There is concern among some that the exemptions that that flexibility permits would dilute the value and credibility of apprenticeships. I fully accept the rather strange situation that applies in relation to, for example, the clergy, and I understand the wider principle of being able to have such flexibility, but I hope that the minister will express a desire—perhaps in an intervention—for there to be only a very small group of exceptions and for the bulk of apprentices to be directly employed in the traditional way.

The minister made no reference to the concern about block release and programme-led learning. There is a concern among some employers that large block-release apprenticeship models remove individuals from the workplace for long periods of time. That disrupts their interaction with other employees and it disrupts the system, which means that they lose the value of such engagement. In addition, employers have difficulty in filling those spaces for such protracted periods.

I wonder whether the minister would like to intervene on that point.

What has been said probably emphasises my amendment 24, which I did not move, about having an industry-led body to make sure that the views of industry are fully and properly reflected in discussions—I accept that that is probably the more appropriate place for them. Having a critical central role for employers would help to address those points.

I am slightly concerned about the issue of competence versus received training. Even if an individual—the apprentice—does not actually achieve competence, they are still classed as having gone through an apprenticeship. That devalues the role of an apprenticeship. I am sure that this is the long-standing practice, but it is important that every employer who sees that somebody has gone through an apprenticeship fully understands that they have achieved competence, not just turned up. I hope that that important point is reflected in the frameworks as we progress.

On Pam Duncan-Glancy’s desire for a definition of “foundation apprenticeship”, I think that the minister’s arguments are the right ones. I am desperate to improve parity of esteem between vocational and academic routes. Foundation apprenticeships play an important role in introducing young people to that credible world of apprenticeships; a foundation apprenticeship is almost a gateway to modern apprenticeships and other types of apprenticeship. However, at the same time, there is a concern, as the minister outlined, that calling them “apprenticeships” perhaps devalues the credibility of apprenticeships in the wider family. Allowing them to be defined in the work-based approach is the right way to progress. I think. For instance, in recent years I have noticed an increase in placements of young people with employers, which is a good opportunity for them to experience the wider world of work. I encourage more of that, but “work-based learning” is perhaps the right umbrella term for that definition.

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?