Chamber and committees

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Amendment 89, by agreement, withdrawn.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].

The Government has said that the islands bill will cut across all legislation. Is that aspect captured in the term “localities”?

That has been a concern during the passage of the bill. Parliament has tried to influence the Government by getting it to focus on where industry must be a part of this, rather than treating it as an afterthought. The minister has moved on some of that—perhaps he wants to intervene.

I welcome the amendments that the minister has lodged in this group. However, I am concerned about the definition of “localities”, as mentioned in Jackie Dunbar’s amendments, and what that would actually include. In the minister’s view, would it cover localities at local authority level, regional city deal level, chamber of commerce level or all of the above?

There is no definition of “localities” in the bill. Given the regional approach that we often talk about and what is included in Stephen Kerr’s amendment 58, why would the Government not support Mr Kerr’s amendment?

Yes.

I have misplaced my notes, so I will have to speak off the top of my head.

Annual reporting was discussed at stage 2, and I lodged amendment 89 so that ministers could reconsider the matter at stage 3. In its report, the Education, Children and Young People Committee recommended strengthening the reporting provisions, and engagement with the minister has been helpful in that regard. A number of amendments were agreed to at stage 2, and I hope that the minister will support amendment 89 to provide more transparency. I hope that, collectively, we can take forward that theme through the bill.

I move amendment 89.

Throughout our conversations, I have found the minister’s point to be problematic. From speaking to the industry and to young people who are in foundation apprenticeships, I do not think that such stigma exists. My concern has been that the OECD 2024 report, “Innovation in career pathways across five countries”, identified foundation apprenticeships as a critical entry point to a wider apprenticeship network, but the Government will be taking that option away. Does the minister agree that it is problematic and concerning that the OECD report was not used in the formulation of the bill?

When an individual island and its specific development needs are being looked at as part of the islands bill, would the minister see that as a locality, if the bill before us will now include a reference to “localities”? I am not sure that it is islands bill proofed if there is no definition.

In this debate, we need to focus on what often goes on in schools. I do not think that we would say that what goes on is work-based learning, but foundation apprenticeships take place in our schools. Often, those who are furthest away from the education system are the ones who access those.

I have raised the issue with the minister, because I am concerned about it. Recently, along with other Edinburgh MSPs, I visited Liberton high school, which, through Tigers, is providing access to foundation apprenticeships that provide skills in key sectors, such as construction. The Government is sending the signal that the learning will be workplace based, but I am not sure that it understands that schools will not necessarily be captured. The local authorities that fund such programmes might decide not to fund them in the future, which would take away those opportunities.

I have made that case several times to ministers, but it does not seem to have been heard. What guarantee will the Government give—I am sure that Brian Whittle will want to know this—that we will not lose such opportunities in translation through the bill?

Absolutely—the bill could and should have included that.

I do not know why ministers have not wanted more transparency. I have raised the issue with the Deputy First Minister, who specifically answered a question by saying to me that the Scottish Government is not against more transparency and scrutiny surrounding the apprenticeship levy. It sounds as though its back-bench members are against transparency—and its ministers have not taken it forward, either.

I will press my amendments. I hope that—