Chamber and committees

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.

Ross Greer outlined the limited time that we have had in the gap before lodging amendments to be able to work with the Government to get the detail right. That is why I have lodged what is very much a set of probing amendments—amendments 77, 78 and 73. I will also speak to Stephen Kerr’s amendments.

Amendment 77 would broaden the definition so that an apprentice does not need to be receiving wages or other reward.

Amendment 78 would update proposed new section 12E of the 2005 act so that a Scottish apprenticeship must involve an apprentice working for a reward under a contract of employment. That would tighten the definition by making it clear that, in addition to being paid, the apprentice must be formally employed under an employment contract with an employer. I have lodged the amendments because I feel that the bill should be an opportunity to update the standing of apprenticeships, but I am open to working with ministers to strengthen the amendments.

Amendment 83 would add a new subsection that would make it clear that

“a Scottish apprenticeship may include apprenticeships delivered as part of school education and delivering industry standard Scottish Vocational Qualifications and placements.”

It is important to seek clarity in the bill on what foundation apprenticeships look like. I am attempting to address the issue of delivering those in a school setting. There have been many conversations on school-college partnerships, which are really positive and developing, but that is not necessarily captured in the bill. I hope that this is an opportunity to work with the Government to take forward work in the area to recognise how apprenticeships are changing and how and where they can be delivered.

I will move on to speak to amendments 80 and 79, which were lodged by my colleague Stephen Kerr. The amendments concern the very heart of the apprenticeship system—the definition of what a Scottish apprenticeship is. If that definition is vague or incomplete, everything that follows, from funding and quality assurance to the integrity of the apprenticeship brand in Scotland, stands on uncertain ground. The amendments are designed to put that right.

The first point to be made is that the bill as introduced offers only the barest sketch of what constitutes an apprenticeship. It notes that an apprenticeship involves learning and work-based experience, but it does not give Parliament, providers or employers any meaningful assurance about the structure, purpose or integrity of that experience. In a country where apprenticeships have become a vital route to skilled employment and an essential pillar of the productivity agenda, such a loosely drawn definition is inadequate.

I hope that what follows answers Pam Duncan-Glancy’s request for clarification. Amendment 80 would strengthen the definition by making it clear that a Scottish apprenticeship is a structured programme consisting of a coherent framework of learning and work-based experiences that leads to a recognised qualification.

That is not merely a tidying-up exercise; it addresses a real and long-standing concern among employers that the term “apprenticeship” risks being diluted unless it is tied explicitly to recognised quality-assured outcomes. As members will know, Stephen Kerr has consistently argued for a system that enhances rather than erodes the reputation of apprenticeships in Scotland and amendment 80 would give legislative expression to that argument.

It also reflects the experience of employers, which we need to recognise, and that of training providers, who have said repeatedly that clarity is critical. When businesses take on apprentices, they need to know that the programme has rigour, that it leads to a qualification that has value and that the term “apprenticeship” is not being applied inconsistently across different sectors and providers. Amendment 80 would bring that clarification and it articulates the essential elements that give apprenticeships their standing: structured and recognised learning, work-based competence and a qualification that is meaningful in our labour market.

Amendment 79 complements that by addressing the purpose of apprenticeship systems. It would require that the definition of the Scottish apprenticeship must reflect the needs of the Scottish economy and the opportunities that are available to our workforce. That is the core point in all the Scottish Conservatives’ contributions on reform of the tertiary system. Apprenticeships are not an abstract educational exercise; they exist to prepare people for the jobs of tomorrow and for productive and skilled employment that contributes to our national prosperity. If the definition is stretched from that purpose, it risks creating a system that is technically correct but strategically aimless.

By linking the definition to Scotland’s economic need, amendment 79 would ensure that apprenticeships remain a living and responsive part of the labour market that recognises economic changes as well as technological advances as industries evolve and new sectors emerge, and that the apprenticeship system must be capable of adapting to new opportunities. Without amendment 79, the definition will be strategic at the very moment at which Scotland’s skills system needs to be dynamic.

Taken together, amendments 80 and 79 offer coherent improvement to the bill. They would ensure that, when we speak of a Scottish apprenticeship, we will be speaking of something that has definition, credibility, purpose and economic relevance. The amendments align with the principle that Scottish Conservatives have repeatedly articulated throughout the process that apprenticeships must command the confidence not only of learners but of employers, and they must be designed to serve Scotland’s long-term productivity and prosperity.

The bill seeks to act as a safeguard and strengthen the apprenticeship brand, and amendments 80 and 79 are helpful to that. They would provide clarity and strengthen the bill. I invite members to support amendments 80 and 79 in the name of my colleague Stephen Kerr.

I hear what the minister has had to say this morning. Given the situation at Dundee that is running parallel to the bill’s progression through Parliament, the issue of transparency has been very much on all of our minds. Maggie Chapman’s amendments touch on that issue, too. Further to the minister’s comments on ONS classification, I hope that he will reflect on where the Government has scope to introduce additional transparency measures at stage 3. I think that all of the committee members have been reaching towards that objective.

On my amendment 63, which is about the provision of student mental health and wellbeing support services, the bill might not be the right vehicle to take that forward but, nonetheless, I think that ministers and the committee want progress to be made on the issue. There is significant variation in that provision across the country, which is sometimes down to differences in organisational capacity and size. Some of Ross Greer’s amendments are about the support that could be given to the student body to provide those services.

I hope that the minister will consider those issues, as well as the issue in my colleague Pam Gosal’s amendment 3. If they are not dealt with in the bill, I want to know what commitment the Government will make to ensuring progress on those important issues.

Amendment 50, by agreement, withdrawn.

As Ross Greer has outlined, there is a bit of an overlap between many of the amendments in the group. My amendment 70 seeks to ensure parity between the conditions that will apply to those receiving grants for the purpose of the delivery of programmes of training for employment and those conditions regarding repayment that are imposed on fundable bodies and regional strategic bodies by sections 12A and 12B of the 2005 act.

As I said earlier, it is vital to ensure that public money is not given without the ability to seek repayment and, where appropriate, interest. As has been touched on, the Government already has a number of policies in place relating to the fair work first criteria but, under my amendment 74, the requirement to comply with those criteria would be included in the terms and conditions that are imposed, given the links to Government policy in this regard.

I will be moving amendment 70.

To complete the love-in, I, too, congratulate you on your award, convener.

I will also be speaking to Stephen Kerr’s amendments in this group, because he cannot join us today. My amendment 40 goes to the heart of the proposal to remove the duty to secure the provision of Scottish apprenticeships and work-based learning from Skills Development Scotland and place it with the Scottish Funding Council. Organisations such as the EIS do not believe that the SFC should have the duty to secure the provision of Scottish apprenticeships and work-based learning, on the basis that it might dilute the administrative and oversight functions, with one organisation being stretched too thin. My amendment would therefore provide for the status quo to be retained, and my solution, which I have discussed with the minister, would be for the next Parliament to look towards having a skills, training and colleges bill to tidy up some of the concerns that the committee highlighted in our report earlier in the session.

Amendments 41, 42, 44 and 45 relate to the alignment of the bill with national priorities and career pathways, as well as regional skills shortages, as Pam Duncan-Glancy mentioned.

I welcome amendment 1 from the minister, which is an amendment that I, too, was considering lodging.

Amendments 43 and 46 are in the name of my colleague Stephen Kerr. The general duties placed on ministers in section 2 set the tone for the entire bill. If those duties lack clarity or force, everything that follows in the legislation rests on an uncertain foundation. The amendments in Stephen Kerr’s name are designed to correct that weakness and ensure that the duties of ministers are aligned with the practical realities of Scotland’s economic and skills challenges.

I know from conversations that the member is open to the drafting of amendments. It is more about ensuring that the foundations of the bill look across sectors. The member has given me flexibility to move or not move the amendments so that we get this right as we go forward.

Turning to amendment 43, I note that the argument is simple but crucial. Scotland invests millions of pounds every year in tertiary education and our skills system, yet the bill contains no explicit requirement for ministers to demonstrate that that expenditure leads to improved outcomes. It does not require ministers to demonstrate improvements in the skills of the workforce, productivity or the achievements of learning. Without that requirement, there is a risk that we create a structure in which money continues to be spent without any meaningful connection to the economic needs of our country.

Scotland faces a number of serious and well-documented productivity challenges. Employers repeatedly identify skills shortages with every committee member as one of the principal barriers to growth in our economy. If the bill does not oblige ministers to consider whether their decisions are improving the situation, we risk entrenching an accountability gap at the very heart of the system.

Amendment 43 would ensure that the public investment must be tied to measurable improvements. It would require ministers to reflect on outcomes, not simply intentions, and to consider the impact of their decisions on productivity and the skills that Scotland needs for the future. The amendment introduces the discipline and transparency that should be expected in any modern skills system, which the bill currently lacks.

Amendment 46 naturally follows from that logic. If we are to transfer significant responsibilities to the Funding Council, including responsibilities for apprenticeships, national training programmes, work-based learning, and the wider landscape of post-school provision, the Parliament must be able to assess at regular intervals whether those responsibilities are being carried out effectively. The bill currently provides no structured mechanism for independent valuation of a council’s performance. That omission leaves the Parliament dependent on ministerial assurances, rather than objective evidence. Amendment 46 seeks to address the gap by requiring an independent evaluation of the council every three years, with a report laid before the Parliament. That is not an undue burden, but it is a reasonable expectation when the council is being asked to steward such a large portion of Scotland’s skills system. Independent evaluation would prevent complacency, protect learners and employers, and ensure that the system adapts to Scotland’s economic needs as they change. It would also provide the Parliament with a reliable basis on which to judge the success of the reforms over a period of time. If the Government believes that the bill will improve Scotland’s skills landscape, it should have no hesitation in welcoming the scrutiny that the amendment would provide for.

The amendments reflect Stephen Kerr’s consistent argument that Scotland needs a tertiary system that is grounded in evidence, focused on outcomes, and transparent in its operation. Amendment 43 would ensure that ministerial decisions must contribute meaningfully to the skills and productivity that Scotland’s economy requires. Amendment 46 would ensure that the council’s performance will be judged independently and openly, rather than being left to assumptions. Together, I believe that they strengthen the bill, strengthen accountability and strengthen the prospects of delivering a skills system that is worthy of Scotland’s workforce. Therefore, I invite colleagues to support amendments 43 and 46, as well as amendments 40 to 42, 44 and 45, in my name.

In light of what the minister has said, I will not move amendment 44.

Amendments 44 and 45 not moved.

I hear what the minister says, but a lot of employers have become very much used to those terms. They understand what an apprentice is. In fact, some of the asks that have been made involve the potential to develop a degree apprenticeship, rather than removing the existing terminology. Has the Government reflected on that? I am worried that the terms might get lost in translation if the Government does not look towards what is now a set of defined apprenticeship terms—“foundation”, “modern” and “graduate”—along with an aspiration for a degree apprenticeship to be developed in the future.

Further to the minister’s commitment to consider the issue further, I seek to withdraw amendment 50.

I welcome Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 48 and very much endorse what she has just said. Many of us hoped that the bill would set out a real vision for the college sector and would be an opportunity to realise colleges’ potential. On Monday, I visited Dundee and Angus College. I believe that Willie Rennie was there the week before; it turns out that he makes a better sparky than I do, from what I was told.

It is important that we consider how to realise the potential of our college sector, especially with regard to the resources that they can potentially access. That is why I welcome Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment.