Chamber and committees

I worked with Colleges Scotland on the amendment, and 75 per cent is the capacity that it would expect to be able to deliver, leaving 25 per cent for other providers in the sector. There would be a transfer of additional apprenticeship work. I hope that there will be a growing capacity. On a number of visits—especially to parts of the economy here in Edinburgh—I have heard about the opportunity for more collaboration between businesses. Other amendments that I have lodged would provide additional funding for colleges to supplement that. For example, the construction sector is crying out for more people to be trained.

Edinburgh College told me that it could take three times the number of people it is currently training, which the sector is desperate for. The amendment would provide for a minimum level of 75 per cent, and I would hope that the college sector could raise additional opportunities.

I realise that I have a lot of amendments in the group, so I will try to make a bit more progress.

Amendment 110 would change the definition of “training provider” from “a person” to a

“registered company or accountable body”.

Amendment 111 would create a mechanism for colleges to act

“as a lead delivery partner for ... Scottish apprenticeships and work-based learning in”

their region when they receive funding under proposed new section 12J of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005.

Taken as a package, the amendments would ensure that our colleges are formally enabled, and required, to act as lead delivery providers, securing their role rather than leaving management wholly to training providers. The minimum percentage floor would therefore ensure that a guaranteed share of modern apprenticeships is anchored in our college sector, thus preserving capacity, aligning the college infrastructure to what is needed and maintaining local access.

My amendments 104 to 107 deal with the role of SMEs in providing training opportunities and with the provision of dedicated access to grants, loans and other payments to allow them to deliver Scottish apprenticeships. The amendments would provide that regard must be had to the economic priorities of Scottish ministers and to the skills needs in different industries.

There are a number of amendments in relation to reporting requirements around transparency and accountability.

I have listened to what the minister has had to say about all the amendments in this group. It is quite telling that all colleagues have tried to highlight in their amendments different aspects of what we had hoped would be in the bill, and I still believe that the bill is missing a vision for our college sector. I am happy not to move my amendments now, but we really need to see that vision from Government as we move towards stage 3, and I am happy to have more conversations on that matter.

Amendment 95 not moved.

Amendments 30, 96 to 102 and 31 not moved.

Amendment 11 moved—[Ben Macpherson]—and agreed to.

Amendments 32 and 103 to 108 not moved.

Amendment 109 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].

Similarly to what Pam Duncan-Glancy outlined in speaking on behalf of Daniel Johnson, I lodged my amendment 123 to secure greater transparency in relation to the apprenticeship levy. Money that is raised through that levy from businesses in Scotland is not easy to follow through our training system.

The apprenticeship levy is a United Kingdom-wide tax and is collected by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. It came into force in 2017 and is set at 0.5 per cent of the employer’s annual wage bill. The way in which the funds are used differs. In Scotland, levy receipts go to the Scottish Government via the block grant. However, in England, levy-paying employers access their own digital accounts to spend funds directly on apprenticeships. That is an interesting model that we could have pursued.

HMRC data shows that, between 2020 and 2024, at least £875 million was raised from Scottish employers under the apprenticeship levy. However, the data shows that only £704 million has been spent on graduate, foundation or modern apprenticeships in Scotland by either Skills Development Scotland, the Scottish Funding Council or the Student Awards Agency Scotland. That means that £171 million has been taken from employers in Scotland to fund apprenticeships but has been diverted elsewhere.

I have nothing further to add, except to say that I am happy to press amendment 132, with the proviso that there will be some tidying-up amendments at stage 3.

Amendment 132 agreed to.

Amendment 13 moved—[Ben Macpherson]—and agreed to.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

After section 8

Amendment 133 not moved.

Section 9—Financial sustainability of post-16 education bodies

Amendments 134 and 135 not moved.

Amendment 14 moved—[Ben Macpherson].

The amendment would ensure that we captured all the apprenticeship levy spend. I am open to working with the Government to look at the wording. The officials advised me to include the wording to which you refer so that all apprenticeship levy moneys would be captured and smaller allocations of funding would not be missed out.

I am grateful to the minister for giving way and I welcome the fact that he supports my amendment 197. There will be a conversation with him ahead of stage 3 on what else must be included in letters of guidance. Would he be open to that conversation including Pam Duncan-Glancy and Daniel Johnson to make sure that those elements are also part of the discussion? Amendment 197 could be improved, and other aspects of what has been outlined could also be taken forward with cross-party agreement.

Amendments 132 to 136 seek to add two new elements that the Scottish Funding Council may examine when carrying out an efficiency study. The first new element would allow such a study to look at whether staff needs and interests were being met, including in relation to fair work first principles, which were discussed last week. The second new element would allow such a study to assess any part of the legislative or administrative framework that shapes how a fundable body is funded or delivers further or higher education. Those additions would broaden what the SFC can currently review beyond financial efficiency and would enable it to review workforce conditions and systemic governance factors.

During our consideration of the bill and in our work on the University of Dundee, the committee has identified a number of areas in which we want improvements to be made in relation to intelligence about governance being made available to the Scottish Funding Council. As I have previously argued, improved transparency should be central to the bill.

Amendment 133 would give the Scottish Funding Council the power to carry out formal reviews of any post-16 education body and to compel information from institutions and their accountable officers or committee chairs. Following a review, the council could publish its findings, require an audit or investigation, mandate the training of senior figures or recommend to ministers that an accountable officer or governing body member be removed. It would also allow certain individuals, as defined in section 23B of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005, to request that the council undertake such a review, and require the council to give reasons for a refusal to do so.

Amendments 135 and 136 are consequential amendments that would widen the scope of monitoring and advice to cover organisations that are involved in apprenticeships, work-based learning and national training programmes, not just post-16 education bodies, to ensure that provisions relating to the monitoring of financial sustainability extend to persons or training providers receiving grants, loans or payments for the purpose of the delivery of training programmes for employment, Scottish apprenticeships or work-based learning.

I move amendment 132.

These amendments are not a whistle-stop tour of Scotland, as they might come across, but are in fact consequential amendments that would insert the names of local authorities as a new first grouping in the schedule, as previously debated. Amendment 151 would, effectively, insert local authorities as a new grouping in the schedule before the list of colleges and universities, so that each local authority would be a fundable body, followed by a second category introducing other bodies that would appear in the remainder of the schedule.

I move amendment 151.

Convener, you would make a great auctioneer.

Amendments 152 to 171 not moved.

Section 13 agreed to.

Section 14—Appointment of members of the Council

As the member will know, my amendment calls for a review of the credit-based funding that is available. The member will also know, because I have mentioned it on a number of occasions in committee, that I am passionate about other funding opportunities that we can consider for our college sector.

Ayrshire College is one of the most successful colleges when it comes to tapping into local business opportunities, with exciting developments around Prestwick airport. Each local college should be looking to their local economy and accessing additional opportunities. Edinburgh has the fastest-growing economy of any part of Scotland, yet Edinburgh College is not able to move forward and access different potential funding streams in the area.

The bill could, and should, provide an opportunity to review funding and look at different funding models. My amendment 49, which complements Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 48, would require ministers to carry out

“a review of the credit-based funding model used by the”

Scottish Funding Council in funding colleges and

“other providers of fundable further education.”

That review must examine how fundable further education provision is delivered across Scotland, including by looking at the availability of courses and the capacity of providers to deliver them. We hear from many colleges that if they had additional resource they would do more to deliver in many of our key sector skills shortage areas, especially around construction.

Ministers would then need to

“publish and lay a report ... before ... Parliament”

setting out the results of the review and any actions that they intended to take in response to it.