Seòmar agus comataidhean

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

Thank you, convener. I feel that I have now morphed completely into being Stephen Kerr’s apprentice at this committee meeting.

I will speak to amendments 85, 89 and 90 in my colleague Stephen Kerr’s name, which deal with the frameworks that underpin Scottish apprenticeships. The amendments in this group might appear to be technical, but they go to the heart of the credibility, quality and responsiveness of the apprenticeship system, and my colleague has lodged them, because the bill as drafted does not provide enough assurance that the apprenticeship framework will be governed in a way that reflects the needs of employers, the expectations of learners and the long-term economic interests of Scotland.

Amendment 85 seeks to ensure that apprenticeship frameworks are not treated merely as administrative instruments but as structured and carefully-design programmes that must meet clear standards of relevance and quality. It makes explicit that frameworks must be delivered by whichever body is most suitable, whether it be a college or a local authority. That is crucial because, if the framework does not reflect the realities of the sector or its local environment, it will quickly become obsolete and, when that happens, it will be the apprentice who will pay the price in diminished opportunities and reduced employability.

Amendment 89 adds a further essential element by requiring regular reviews of apprenticeship frameworks. Scotland’s economy is evolving rapidly; technology is changing workplace practices at speed; industries are rising and declining; and skills that were considered sufficient five or 10 years ago are no longer adequate. However, the bill provides no guarantee that frameworks will periodically be reviewed to ensure that they remain current. This amendment in my party colleague’s name seeks to introduce such a guarantee and would ensure that frameworks are not left to stagnate but can be updated in line with technological processes, shifts in employer demand and emerging opportunities for the Scottish workforce. It provides the system with the dynamism that is needed in modern skills economies.

Amendment 90 strengthens the accountability around the creation of those frameworks by requiring that their development be undertaken in consultation with those who rely on them—employers, industries, learners and training providers. Stephen Kerr has argued consistently that one of the weaknesses in the system is the distance between policy makers and practitioners. Decisions are too often made centrally, without sufficient engagement with key stakeholders, who understand what a competent worker in their field needs to know and be able to do.

Amendment 90 corrects that by embedding consultation as a statutory requirement rather than a discretionary courtesy, thereby preventing frameworks from being created or amended in isolation and ensuring that they are grounded in real labour market intelligence. Like me, the minister will be aware of the work that Edinburgh College has undertaken with its net zero courses—for example, linking with employers on the provision of heat source pumps, which trainees will be working on, in order to have skilled workforce-ready employees. That is a live example of what is being achieved.

Taken together, amendments 85, 89 and 90 put in place a coherent structure for the development, consultation and review of apprenticeship frameworks. They ensure that the apprenticeship system does not become detached from the world of work; they support a model of rigorous, industry-informed and adaptable frameworks; and they serve the wider principle that my colleague Stephen Kerr championed in his stage 1 speech—namely, that Scotland’s apprenticeship system must be an engine of productivity, not merely an administrative category in tertiary education.

If Scotland wants an apprenticeship system that commands the respect of employers, inspires confidence in learners and drives economic opportunity, the frameworks must, at their core, be robust, relevant and regularly renewed. The amendments help to achieve that and strengthen the bill in a practical and necessary way.

I invite colleagues to support amendments 85, 89 and 90 in the name of my colleague Stephen Kerr.

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.