Seòmar agus comataidhean

Would Pam Duncan-Glancy agree that part of the way to tackle the country’s health challenges, as well as the child poverty that John Mason mentions, is by investing in the people of Scotland through skills, education and training—the very things that are supposed to be the focus of the bill?

I heard very clearly what the minister said. I simply add in relation to amendment 141 that, if the Scottish Government is asking the Funding Council to take on an expanded and more complex role, the council should operate under a clear and disciplined statutory framework of the kind that a number of amendments in this group have spelled out. Nevertheless, I look forward to further engagement with the minister in relation to the reporting criteria. I will not be moving amendment 141.

On amendment 17, I noted subsection (6), in particular, which talks about “socio-economic groups” that are “under-represented” and so on. Interestingly, no part of that amendment—and particularly not that part—mentions apprenticeships. Is the minister not concerned that there might be underrepresented socioeconomic groups that are unable to access apprenticeships?

My amendments 146 to 149 in this group seek to deal with how the Scottish Funding Council will exercise the significant and expanded functions that the bill will confer on it. I have lodged the amendments because, as the bill currently stands, the framework for exercising those functions lacks essential safeguards, clarity and discipline. Without those amendments, the council would be asked to shoulder major new responsibilities without the statutory requirements that are necessary to ensure transparency, consistency and a focus on Scotland’s long-term interests.

Amendment 146 seeks to ensure that, when the council exercises its functions, it does so in a way that is aligned with Scotland’s economic needs. My party has consistently argued that the tertiary system should be one of the central drivers of national productivity and national competitiveness. However, although legislation requires the council

“to have regard to ... skills needs in Scotland”,

I believe that that requirement is too broad and allows for crucial factors to be overlooked.

Amendment 146 seeks to correct that by requiring the Funding Council to have explicit regard to Scotland’s employer demand, labour market shortages, skills needs and, crucially, future economic priorities at national and regional levels. Legislating to match support to employer demand will reduce, as far as possible, the funding of low-value courses that do not correspond to employer demand and which result in young people being stuck either in unemployment or in jobs that do not match their skill sets.

I believe that legally mandating that the council have regard to our labour market shortages will force the council to prioritise addressing crucial reoccurring gaps in our national workforce and to prioritise emerging sectors, such as artificial intelligence, to ensure that Scotland is at the forefront of emerging sectors. It is also crucial to mandate that economic priorities at both national and regional levels be considered, as that will ensure that the distinct skills needs in every part of Scotland are not overlooked by a centralised body in Edinburgh.

The amendment would ensure that the council’s work was not simply administrative but strategic, purposeful and grounded in the realities of the economy that it is meant to serve in the present and in the future.

On the basis of what the minister said, I think that I will have a further conversation with him, so I will not move amendment 146.

Amendment 146 not moved.

Section 12 agreed to.

After section 12

Amendment 47 moved—[Ross Greer].

Yes. I think it important that, as part of the totality of the Funding Council’s work, current and future economic prospects, as forecast, be considered. We all know people—young people, in particular—who have worked hard and obtained a degree but who are unable to fulfil their aspirations, because the jobs that their particular qualification is for are just not there or the qualification is not regarded by potential employers. I share that concern.

Amendment 147 seeks to introduce a duty to minimise administrative burdens, which is very apt, given the conversation on the previous group of amendments. Everyone around the table will have spoken to countless employers and will know that one thing that they all say is that the current skills landscape is too complex and has too much red tape. I have spent time with businesses in my constituency that will not, for example, take on apprentices, simply because it is far too heavy and onerous an administrative task. We need to have a council and a skills system that are focused on delivery, not on paperwork.

In order to do that, we must have a system that small businesses—indeed, even medium-sized and larger-sized businesses—find easy to access and not intimidating. As a result, amendment 147 seeks to mandate that

“The Council must exercise its functions in a manner that minimises administrative burdens on colleges, training providers and employers.”

Amendment 148 would ensure that support is not just provided and focused on young people but is also available to adults who are retraining and for lifelong learning, because that will become more of a feature in the future than it is currently.

We all agree that there is a concerningly high level of economically inactive adults in our society. At the same time, however, we do far too little to support them out of the poverty cycle or to retrain in different sectors. Amendment 148 is designed to shift the dial to support them by pushing the Funding Council to support flexible pathways that are suitable for adults with responsibilities, rather than rigid courses that are designed solely for young adults.

Amendment 149 would introduce an obligation on the Funding Council to protect college autonomy. At present, the bill gives the council significant discretion, but discretion without guiding principles can lead to uneven or unpredictable decision making. That is why my amendment would ensure that the Funding Council acts in a manner that is fair across institutions, balanced in its interventions and respectful of the autonomy of fundable bodies, while still protecting learners and the public interest. The amendment seeks to reinforce the principle that oversight should be robust but not arbitrary.

Taken together, my amendments would strengthen the bill considerably. They would ensure that the Funding Council’s expanded powers are exercised with clarity, fairness, transparency and responsiveness, and would embed economic purpose into its work. The amendments reflect the wider principle that we—certainly on the Conservative side of the chamber—have championed throughout the passage of the bill, which is that Scotland’s skills system must be more than an administrative machine. It must be a strategic asset in driving national prosperity.

For those reasons, I invite my colleagues on the committee to support amendments 146 to 149 in my name.

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.