Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. I will speak to amendments 94, 96 to 100 and 119, which are in my name and which all relate to the funding of Scottish apprenticeships and work-based learning, an area that is absolutely central to whether the bill succeeds or fails in its practical purpose.

The bill as introduced moves large responsibilities from Skills Development Scotland to the Scottish Funding Council, yet it does so without providing the clarity, transparency or accountability that such a transfer demands. I have lodged amendments to correct that deficiency and to ensure that the new funding system is coherent, credible and oriented towards Scotland’s long-term economic needs.

At the heart of the amendments lies the clear principle that a skills system cannot function if the funding that underpins it is opaque, unstable or poorly aligned with the needs of learners and employers. Apprenticeships and work-based learning thrive when funding mechanisms are predictable, when they encourage participation and when they incentivise high-quality provision. They falter when funding is inconsistent or unresponsive. The bill, as drafted, risks the latter. These amendments, taken together, aim to secure the former.

Amendment 94 would introduce a requirement that people aged 16 to 24 who are not in full-time education or employment be offered access to a publicly funded apprenticeship or work-based learning opportunity. The amendment speaks to a moral obligation that we have to ensure that every young person in Scotland has equality of opportunity. Far too often, our education system focuses on university as the gold standard. It often forgets about those who are not academically inclined. Amendment 94 would provide a clear legal right to equality of opportunity. It would shine a light on those who have fallen through the cracks in our education system and provide a hand up, not a handout.

Will you allow me just to say—

I think that John Mason will find that there is great demand for apprenticeships. Currently, that demand is unmet. If you listen to employers, as I am sure John Mason has done, you will find that they are crying out for those. That is particularly the case in the small and medium-sized enterprise sector, which we all know is a huge element of the Scottish economy. More people work in SMEs than in large-scale businesses, and SMEs are desperately keen to bring on apprenticeships, particularly for young people.

I do not think that the question is whether the demand exists; it is whether we have the will and accept our moral responsibility to make that provision when public funding is required, and that is what my amendment would do.

Amendments 96, 97 and 98 would build on that commitment of equality of opportunity. Amendment 96 would provide that the council must ensure that apprenticeships

“include pathways targeted at—

(a) unemployed persons,

(b) persons seeking to change careers, and

(c) persons at risk of labour market exclusion.”

Amendment 97 would oblige the Funding Council to

“promote and support school-to-work pathways, including school college partnerships, foundation apprenticeships and work-based learning for senior phase pupils.”

Amendment 98 would require the council to

“take steps to expand the range and number of graduate apprenticeship frameworks”

and,

“in doing so, prioritise sectors experiencing skills shortages”.

The amendments are targeted specifically at those who are either left out or are at risk of being left out of the labour market. They are targeted to reduce economic inactivity and, crucially, to ensure equality of opportunity across the board. As members will have detected from my remarks, I have a commitment—as I am sure they do—to the concept of creating more equal opportunity in our country and our economy.

Amendments 99 and 100 would strengthen the link between funding and quality. They would require ministers and the council to ensure that funding does not simply support provision but supports provision that is fit for purpose and capable of delivering meaningful outcomes.

We recognise that apprenticeships are not simply another educational pathway; they are a contract of sorts between the state, the learner and the employer. When that contract is honoured, productivity rises, job prospects improve and the system commands public confidence. When funding is detached from quality, the entire system risks mediocrity. The amendments would provide a safeguard against that outcome.

Amendment 119 addresses the long-standing problem of volatility in apprenticeship funding. The availability of places in Scotland too often fluctuates unpredictably from year to year. We have seen that happen particularly in the past two or three years. That creates uncertainty for employers and learners alike, along with everyone else in that ecosystem.

Apprenticeships require continuity. Businesses must know when they are planning that, if they invest in new talent, the system will support them. Amendment 119 would require ministers to consider stability and continuity in funding, so that the apprenticeship system can grow rather than lurch from one year to the next.

I am bound to point out that, in respect of the current amount of money that is raised and allocated to Scotland through the apprenticeship levy every year, we are spending nothing like the amount of money that is designated for apprenticeships on apprenticeships, to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds.

Taken together, the amendments present a coherent view of what a modern, effective funding system must look like. It must be transparent, predictable and aligned with economic need. As I said in response to John Mason earlier, there is undoubtedly genuine demand for apprenticeships. Together, these amendments are all about high-quality provision that equips Scotland’s workforce for the future. Those are principles that my party, the Scottish Conservatives, have championed consistently throughout the scrutiny of the bill, and they are principles that would make the legislation better. I know the minister well enough to know that his motivation would be to make it work better.

Apprenticeships and work-based learning are not peripheral concerns; they are central to Scotland’s productivity, competitiveness and opportunity. If the funding system is weak, the entire structure weakens with it. That is why the amendments in my name in the group seek to strengthen the bill, which I believe urgently needs reinforcement if it is to mean anything.

I invite colleagues to support amendments 94, 96 to 100 and 119.

Minister, do you accept that this approach will create uncertainty in the funding of apprenticeships? In effect, you are saying that all of this will be done at the top line and that it is all directional, with an envelope of money given to the SFC, but there is nothing to say that the SFC will spend the money one way or another. It might spend money in each of the areas that you, as the minister, have designated, but that does not mean that there will be consistency in funding. That will undermine the whole apprenticeship system.

Does the minister accept that there is quite a lot of unmet demand, especially in the SME sector? Does he also understand that hundreds of millions of pounds, cumulatively, have been passed to the Scottish Government as part of the block grant, under the heading of apprenticeship levy money, that are not being spent on apprenticeships at all?

The minister is right that we have not had the opportunity to discuss my amendments before today’s meeting. I am quite anxious to engage with the minister on those issues, because at their heart is my concern, which I know is shared across all parties, that there is currently a disparity of esteem between the post-school routes that a young person might take.

I raise broader issues in my amendments, but at the heart of my concerns lies a concern about a baked-in inequality in which different groups of young people are being given different amounts of backing, particularly when it comes to public funds. In my view, that approach has discriminated in favour of universities.

There is a strong predominant feeling in the country, which I feel is misplaced, that going to university is the be-all and end-all on leaving school. That is clearly not the case, particularly in the age of the apprenticeships that we now enjoy, including those that we describe in Scotland as graduate apprenticeships. By the way, I believe that those apprenticeships are misnamed; they are really degree apprenticeships, because they are not for graduates but for undergraduates. Indeed, I have raised that point before.

At the root of this is my personal dissatisfaction—though, again, I think that it is shared by many other people in all parties—with the current description of positive destinations. It is an inadequate measurement, with a very short-term follow-through—I think that the maximum is about nine months. There are variable degrees of what one might call a “positive destination”, and I feel that it is an inadequate way of describing our young people’s post-school experience.

It is because of my on-going concern about inequality of opportunity for young people—and, in fact, inequality of opportunity across society—that I have lodged my amendments. Because I have not had the opportunity to meet the minister and discuss the amendments in detail, and because I believe that there is some mileage in the amendments that we should explore, I will not press amendment 94 or move any of my other amendments in the group. I will meet the minister, have a discussion with him, see what common ground there might be, reconsider the matter and see what amendments might be lodged at stage 3.

Amendment 94, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 9 and 10 moved—[Jackie Dunbar]—and agreed to.

To be sure that we have the fair representation and, indeed, the enhanced equality of opportunity that the minister will understand is my objective, I think that it would be good to identify the specific access issues that exist in relation to apprenticeships. I believe that, as time goes on, apprenticeships will increasingly be seen as a pre-eminent and desirable route from school, particularly for young people.

No. I am referring to the mechanism by which places are funded rather than where the places are located, whether in the public or private sector.

Okay.

I am grateful to Liam McArthur for his response to my intervention. However, because of the expectation he outlined—which may or may not be met—of the number of people who will ask to have the procedure, I think that he made the case for a two-year review at the outset of the bill. The need for close inspection and careful and proper review is much greater during the initial phases and the initial experiences of patients, doctors and every other individual and organisation that is impacted by them.

I am not trying to read Liam McArthur’s mind or heart on these matters. However, there could be a real danger that the way in which the law is enacted will spiral in a direction that I genuinely do not think that he would anticipate. Having such a check and balance built in by way of a two-year review would satisfy that concern.