Chamber and committees

Those were not my words; they were the words of the EIS.

The EIS suggested it.

When the cabinet secretary and other colleagues visited the old eye pavilion at my invitation, he would have heard that patient records are currently in paper form. Given the closure of the eye pavilion and the fact that those records had to be stored in halls and distributed around temporary services, will the digitisation of patient records and scans be taken into account in the design of and funding for the new hospital?

Following some debate and discussion at stage 2, I lodged a number of amendments to look towards a definition of a Scottish apprenticeship. Specifically, I stated during stage 2 that I felt that the bill had missed an opportunity to provide improvements to the terms and conditions for apprentices and also to develop clear pathways to employment.

As the bill stands, there is no requirement for an apprentice to have a contract of employment or to be paid rather than receive other forms of reward. There is also no specific reference to the development and demonstration of competence in key areas, which is where I had hoped that the Government would work more with us to look for solutions.

From the outset, the Scottish Conservatives have expressed our concern that the bill could jeopardise foundation apprenticeships by removing them from the apprenticeship family as they stand and reclassifying them as as-yet-undefined work-based learning courses. Taking out formally assessed Scottish Qualifications Authority work placements and leaving a school-based “skills-for-work” type of course on its own would not achieve the same outcomes as a foundation apprenticeship.

Every MSP will have met people who are undertaking foundation apprenticeships and will have seen the huge opportunities and pathways into work that they provide. I have raised this issue privately and publicly with the minister. I am concerned about the loss of foundation apprenticeships, which is something that I want to highlight, as will Brian Whittle when he speaks to his amendments. We want to give the Parliament the opportunity to retain foundation apprenticeships as part of the bill. Given that the bill is still relatively vague in this area, there is no confidence that it will provide the certainty and the sound footing that are necessary for the continued delivery of foundation apprenticeships, which are internationally recognised and are a real Scottish success story.

The Government should have paused to consider what is essential if we are to meet the ambitions of our Scottish education system and to deliver on its key education priorities. As we debate stage 3, there is a lack of focus in the bill on the frameworks to support and protect apprenticeships—it has fallen short in that area.

I will listen to what the minister has to say in deciding whether to move amendments 76, 78, 80 and 82, in my name. However, for now, I intend to move them.

That is exactly why we need more transparency on where the funding has gone. I am sure that Mr Mason would support that principle, especially given his work on different Scottish Parliament committees. Transparency around public funds is surely something that we all agree on and would want to strengthen our systems in regard to.

Having listened to ministers and the reasoning behind their not supporting my amendment 123 at stage 2, I have tried to help them and, therefore, have lodged a suite of amendments that seek to provide different options to improve annual reporting on the apprenticeship levy and how it is spent in Scotland.

Amendment 87 would insert a requirement for the Scottish ministers, each financial year, to

“seek information from the United Kingdom government on the amount of funding provided through the block grant adjustment as a result of the apprenticeship levy established by Part 6 of the Finance Act 2016.”

Amendment 88 would establish an annual report on the use of apprenticeship levy funding in Scotland. Each financial year, the Scottish ministers would have to

“prepare a report on the use of funding allocated to skills and training that is derived from”

the associated block grant adjustment. The report would include

“the total amount of funding allocated by the Scottish Ministers that was derived from the block grant adjustment associated with the apprenticeship levy”

in each financial year.

Perhaps most importantly, and I do not see why ministers would not support this, amendment 90 would provide annual reporting on funding for skills and training, which would deliver better understanding of where the apprenticeship levy is going—where it is being spent, Mr Mason. The amendment sets out that

“The Scottish Ministers must, for each financial year, prepare a report on the use of funding allocated for skills and training.”

Why is that important? Previously, colleges have benefited from the flexible workforce development fund, for example, which was positively evaluated and provided a great return on investment, using funding from Scotland’s share of the levy. I believe that more transparency would allow colleges and employers to see the returns that come to Scotland, where the levy is being both raised and spent, and the additional opportunities that are being created for learners.

The amendments in this group deal with the levy and are really important. I know that from debates and from questions that I have asked, specifically when the Deputy First Minister has been in the chamber. In response to one of my questions, she said that the Scottish Government is not against more transparency about, and scrutiny of, the apprenticeship levy, so I hope that the Government will support my amendments.

I move amendment 87.

I have not found the minister’s arguments convincing. He will have heard from Green, Liberal, Democrat, Labour and Conservative MSPs at committee that we want more transparency. The Scottish Parliament’s mace, which is in front of us, has the four words “Wisdom”, “Justice”, “Compassion” and “Integrity”, but maybe “Transparency” should also be there.

The Government had an opportunity to work with us to lodge amendments, but somehow it has not done that work. I would have thought that ministers would be able to support amendment 90 because it gives them the opportunity to provide transparency to Parliament that we do not currently have. Because of that, it is down to members of the public and politicians in Opposition parties to submit freedom of information requests to find out what money HMRC has given the Scottish Government and where the Scottish Government has allocated that money.

There is still £171 million that Scottish businesses have expected to be spent on the delivery of apprenticeships that has not been spent on that, and there is no transparency about where that money is.

The Conservative members are supportive of amendment 10, but I want to ask the minister whether it is the Scottish Government’s vision that it will make colleges lead delivery providers for modern apprenticeships under the bill, with a minimum percentage of apprenticeships delivered through colleges as part of the “college first” principle that I tried to progress at stage 2.

We have not got to Willie Rennie’s amendment on the issue yet, but I think that the minister is almost making the argument against it, as it would introduce another sub-committee structure. Is that not the case? What industry is concerned about is that, by being just part of a wider conversation in that sub-committee, its voice and needs could be lost in translation. That is why we think that a version of SAAB should be retained.

Amendment 75 goes to the heart of some of the concerns that the Education, Children and Young People Committee has heard. Industries and businesses that are desperate for apprenticeships do not feel that the current system is delivering for them. However, their voice is not going to be specifically included. As the minister did, I pay tribute to SAAB for the work that it has done but, if that board is not fundamentally at the heart of the bill, the voice of industry and business will be lost.

For a minute there, given Mr Kerr’s Machiavellian nature, I thought that he did not even intend to move the amendment in his name. Luckily, our standing orders would have given the minister the opportunity to do that.

This set of amendments provides for a health check on where the apprenticeship sector is. My amendments specifically address reasons for decreases in publicly funded apprenticeships, and I hope that the minister will consider that point in relation to guidance. I do not think that Mr Kerr’s amendment 50 necessarily captures that, but it will be an important issue to consider in the years to come. If apprenticeships are not delivered in some key sectors, we will need to know why that is the case. I hope that the minister will take that point on board.

I do not intend to press amendment 89.

Amendment 89, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 90 moved—[Miles Briggs].