Chamber and committees

I absolutely agree with Stephen Kerr. We need a new vision for how such advice is delivered and we need different organisations to provide the opportunity for extracurricular work outside school so that we can give our young people the ambition to get what is out there.

With my colleague Sharon Dowey, I recently visited the Ayr campus of the University of the West of Scotland. The university is doing a lot of work on the blending of school and university learning. I was hugely impressed by the portfolio of work-based learning and graduate apprenticeship models that it has developed. Those routes offer an alternative pathway into degree-level study for individuals who are employed or wish to go straight into work. Most young people tell us that they want work-based learning. We need to ensure that the systems that we put in place and that we publicly fund match that positive outlook.

When the Parliament was first reconvened, we used to speak more about the aspiration for lifelong learning—the ability for Scots to access the continuous development of skills and knowledge throughout their life. For many people, that is just not the case and the Parliament does not really talk about lifelong learning any longer.

However, I acknowledge the Open University’s briefing, which stated that it has 16,470 students across Scotland, 71 per cent of whom are in employment. That demonstrates the alignment that we need between the provision of education and workforce development. We need to work alongside employers to ensure that we achieve that.

Absolutely. It is a fact that we have lost more than 100,000 places on such courses in our college sector. That has had huge impacts on every part of our society, and we should acknowledge that.

I would also like to highlight the work of Robert Gordon University, information on which was provided to the committee. I declare an interest in that I am a graduate of RGU. I loved my time studying in Aberdeen and one of the reasons why I chose to study at Robert Gordon was the fact that it had such a great reputation for graduate employment. The university has put graduate employability at the heart of its approach to education, working closely with industry in the north-east—including the fishing industry—to ensure that, through its courses, students gain the knowledge and experience that will allow them to access those career pathways. It provides a wide range of not only compulsory but optional placements to implant people into work. That is a model that I have always advocated for and, last year, it resulted in RGU’s graduate employability rate standing at 96.5 per cent. The university was ranked second in the United Kingdom on graduate employment. We need to look not only to the pathways in education but to the pathways into employment and the opportunities that exist in so many key sectors.

The convener touched on the evidence that was provided. It is worth putting on the record that the targets that were set for Robert Gordon University were unable to be met. That was down to the fact that the targets relate to places for students from SIMD 20 areas. The fact that 7.2 per cent of full-time degree entrants at the university in 2023-24 were from SIMD 20 areas is incredibly welcome, but there are not enough SIMD 20 postcodes in the north-east for the university to meet the target. Ministers and the wider Parliament have to acknowledge that—we might hear more on that point from members for the north-east.

The progress that is being made to support care-experienced young people is important and the committee will return to that in the new year when the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill goes through Parliament. Some of the private sessions that the committee has held in relation to the bill were the most important ones—for me, anyway—because we heard young people’s evidence about their concerns that, although there has been a lot of success in getting them into further and higher education, whether they are being sustained in it has not been measured or tracked. I hope that it will be recognised that we should not take just getting a young person into an educational institution as success; we need to get them to the end of their time in that institution. That has not been tracked and we need to be honest about it. I hope that ministers will take on board the committee’s recommendations and findings on that.

I am concerned that our college sector has become the Cinderella of our education system. In recent years, we have seen significant cuts to the sector. Colleges Scotland’s submission called for a greater focus to be placed on the funding of part-time provision because it would bring benefits for adult returners and those who seek to develop their skills while in employment. The Scottish Conservatives have a vision to reform and increase the number of apprenticeships and to support our college sector. However, the budget in January will be a key test for ministers and it is important that we see whether there is a commitment to our college sector.

Widening access to higher education must be about real opportunity. Many of our talented young people are still being held back by background, postcode and circumstance. In order to change that, Scotland needs our colleges and universities to be properly supported and to deliver fair access, with clear pathways for students not only into further study but into work. Together, they can help achieve the potential of our young people in the years to come.

I come back to Willie Rennie’s point, on which I hope we will hear from the minister later. I do not think that the Government has built IT systems that are capable of putting in place a unique learner number. The lack of investment in IT in our schools is at the heart of the issue.

I, too, thank all the people who gave evidence to the committee and all the organisations that provided helpful briefings ahead of the debate. In seven minutes, I will not be able to touch upon all the work that they highlighted, but we were given a lot of helpful content about the work that our colleges and universities are undertaking to try to close the gap and give people the opportunity to get into education.

I highlight something on which I agree with Keir Starmer—I did not necessarily think that I would say that. It is something that he said at the Labour Party conference. I say to Mr Whitfield that I was not there. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister set the challenge of making vocational options as attractive to parents—we must remember them—and young people as higher education. We lack that in our debate in the Scottish Parliament.

As I have stated in almost every education debate, Conservative members want real reform to provide more opportunities for our young people. I refer to opportunities such as the ones that I saw on Friday when I visited Liberton high school with my Lothian colleague Sue Webber—I know that Daniel Johnson was there a few weeks previously. The school has partnered with the Tigers construction academy to offer young people in that part of the city a foundation apprenticeship in construction skills to give them a taste of the careers on offer in the construction industry. It was positive to hear from those young people that that helps not only by providing practical sessions but by focusing their learning in other subjects, including the theoretical importance of, for example, mathematics to work. It also plants in those young people’s heads the seed of a future career ladder and pathways beyond it into further and higher education.

Lothian MSPs have been contacted by newly qualified midwives who have expressed concern that they cannot access further experience without gaining employment and securing a permanent position. There is no clear pathway for midwives to complete their preceptorship before applying for permanent positions in NHS Scotland. Has the Scottish Government considered the approach of the Welsh Government, for example, which provides a job guarantee scheme for newly qualified midwives that guarantees them a minimum of 22 hours of work, allowing them to achieve their preceptorship before they apply for jobs?

Give the minister’s commitment to further conversation at stage 3, I will not move it.

Amendment 180 not moved.

Section 15 agreed to.

Section 16—Co-opted members of the Council

Amendment 36 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

Section 17—Apprenticeship committee

My amendments and those of Stephen Kerr go to the heart of the Scottish Conservatives’ concern that the bill does not reflect adequately enough the voice of industry and business. My amendments 182, 184, 187, 188 and 189 would provide for a voice for business to be placed at the centre of the development partnerships and draw on the wealth of talent and business voices who want to be involved in our apprenticeship systems and on that committee.

Amendment 184 would add a requirement for the apprenticeship committee to include members who represent the interests of businesses in relevant industries, along with other individuals whom the Scottish Funding Council considers appropriate. That would ensure that the committee would have an industry-focused representative and representation, while giving the council flexibility to include additional expertise.

Amendments 187, 188 and 189 would ensure that employer perspectives were considered in shaping the apprenticeship committee’s membership alongside ensuring that the Scottish Funding Council directly considers including people who represent the interests of businesses and relevant industries, as well as delivering geographically balanced employer representation. That was not discussed at any length during the committee’s work on the bill, but it would ensure that the apprenticeship committee was not dominated by particular parts of the country.

Stephen Kerr’s amendments 190, 192 and 194 go to the core of whether the bill will create a credible, accountable and employer-led apprenticeship system, or whether it will simply replace one layer of bureaucracy with another.

We should view this group of amendments as one of the most important, because they concern the institutional architecture that will determine whether Scotland’s apprenticeship system succeeds or fails in meeting the needs of learners, employers and the wider Scottish economy. The bill proposes the creation of committees and boards that will advise the council on apprenticeships and skills, but, as it is drafted, the bill leaves critical questions unanswered. It does not guarantee that the people who understand apprenticeships best—the employers, practitioners and industry representatives—will have meaningful influence over decision-making, nor does it ensure that their advice carries weight, visibility and accountability. Too much is left to the discretion of ministers and the Funding Council, and too little is embedded in statute. My colleague Stephen Kerr’s amendments are designed to correct that weakness and to ensure that the governance structures have the strength, legitimacy and transparency that a modern skills system requires.

Amendment 190 would require that the committees and boards established under the bill be composed in a way that reflects the real economy. That is fundamental; if a body is charged with advising on apprenticeships, it must not be dominated by bureaucratic or academic voices at the expense of the employers who create the apprenticeships. For many years, Scotland has benefited from the Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board, which we all acknowledge and agree on. It brought direct employer insight into the system, and the model should not be weakened. Amendment 190 would ensure that committees are not tokenistic but generally representative of industries that depend on the apprenticeship system for their future workforce.

Amendment 192 would introduce a critical element to the apprenticeship committee: transparency. Under the bill, committees and boards may operate entirely out of sight, with no obligation for their advice to be published, shared or even explained. That is not good governance, and it is not good enough for a system as important as our apprenticeship system. Therefore, amendment 192 would require that the advice that is provided by those committees be transparent and that the Funding Council should set out how it will respond to the advice. That is essential for accountability. If the Funding Council chose not to follow the advice of committees, it should explain why it has not done that; if it accepts the advice, learners, employers and providers should be able to see the rationale behind the decision making.

Amendment 194 would build on that by ensuring that the committees and boards had a clear statutory purpose and defined responsibilities, rather than vague consultative roles. Like others, we have repeatedly made the point that advisory structures are effective only when they are empowered. Without a statutory mandate, committees risk being sidelined or used selectively—consulted when convenient and ignored when not.

Amendment 194 would ensure that the advice of those committees be sought, considered and responded to. It would move the system from a discretionary model to a principled one, in which employer and industry insight was not an optional extra, but a structural requirement. Taken together, the amendments would do something vital: they would stop Scotland’s apprenticeship governance being dragged back into a centralised bureaucratic model and, instead, would embed the principle that apprenticeship policy must be shaped by those who understand apprenticeships best.

The amendments are the difference between a system that listens and a system that merely hears; between employer-led governance and institution-led governance; and between a skills system that responds to the economy and one that expects the economy to respond to it. If the Scottish Government is serious about improving productivity, reducing skills shortages and expanding high-quality apprenticeships, the bill must empower employers, industry and practitioners—not sideline them. Amendments 190, 192 and 194 would do exactly that. For those reasons, I invite colleagues to support the amendments in the name of my colleague Stephen Kerr.

Amendment 203 is a probing amendment, as the minister has touched on. Concerns have been expressed by organisations such as the EIS on the impact of the modification of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which he will be aware of, which would allow private providers to be designated for the purpose of paying student allowances and loans. The clarification that the minister has provided is helpful. I do not intend to move amendment 203, given the assurances that he has given the committee.

The amendments in this group and the next are consequential. Amendments 145 and 150 seek to set out new duties for the Scottish Funding Council, requiring it to ensure that strategy and funding across the tertiary education system are aligned through collaboration with local authorities, training providers, employers and further and higher education bodies. The amendments would embed a statutory expectation of joint planning and co-delivery by all key partners when the council exercises its functions. As a result, amendment 150 would insert local authorities as a new first grouping within the schedule.

Am I to speak to the second grouping, as set out in amendments 151 to 171, convener?

Sorry—I have just amendments 145 and 150 in this group.

I move amendment 145.