Seòmar agus comataidhean

Sorry—I have just amendments 145 and 150 in this group.

I move amendment 145.

The rationale for including local authorities is so that they can look at how, in some cases, training has changed. One example of that is here in Edinburgh, where, as the minister will know, Edinburgh College has lost its traditional building skills course. Across the Forth, Fife Council has taken the decision to help fund training places for those skills. My amendments would provide for and facilitate a local authority being the lead deliverer of such training. The minister and Government need to be aware of the different models that are emerging in response to very specific, often niche, shortages in the workforce—workers with traditional building skills being one of them. I am happy for the minister to take that away ahead of stage 3. However, it is important that that role for local authorities is included in the bill so that they have the potential to deliver such training.

As the debate has demonstrated, there is an important role for councils to start to play in providing more training opportunities, specifically with regard to some of our sector skills shortages.

The amendments in this group, on which members have done a lot of work, go to the heart of something that I think is vital, which is that representative voices of teaching and non-teaching staff must form part of the decision-making process on the board of the SFC. That would be in line with provisions in the Higher Education Governance (Scotland) Act 2016 and the Colleges of Further Education and Regional Strategic Bodies (Membership of Boards) (Scotland) Order 2023, so I think that it is important that that consideration is included in the bill.

My amendment 180 is very similar to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 177, as both look to ensure that a trade union representative is appointed to the council.

As is the case with the two other provisions that I have outlined, trade union representatives are already included. It is important to ensure that a union representative is part of the board, but there would not necessarily have to be representatives of all of the sectors that Mr Mason outlined.

It is important to have that representation and that the Scottish Funding Council takes those conversations forward when it appoints the board. I am content to support amendment 177 and, if that is not agreed to, to move my amendment 180.

Good morning. My amendment 95 would add a new definition of work-based learning—it would make it clear that foundation apprenticeships are included in the statutory definition.

Amendments 101 and 102 would ensure that good practice in local authorities is taken into account and that the SFC engages with our local authorities.

On amendment 103, as I outlined last week, the Scottish Conservatives hope that the bill can be an opportunity for a culture shift across our education and skills system so that working relationships with the college sector, as part of the wider tertiary sector, can be more collaborative, and so that colleges are empowered to become drivers of change, rather than merely recipients of funding. Amendment 103 is intended to empower our colleges to deliver opportunities in their local areas and drive forward economic growth.

The SFC’s report, “Financial Sustainability of Colleges in Scotland 2020-21 to 2025-26”, recognises the worsening financial health of Scottish colleges. However, unless the SFC is ultimately given the power to address the financial sustainability of the college sector, the current position is unlikely to change.

Audit Scotland has evidence that there has been a 17 per cent real-terms reduction in funding in the college sector between 2021 and 2025. That has resulted in colleges having to deliver significant annual recurrent savings that will have a material impact on learners and those institutions.

My amendment 103 would provide for the delivery of Scottish apprenticeships or work-based learning through a college-first presumption, with a minimum of a 75 per cent share of grants, loans and other payments being made directly to Scottish colleges in the public sector or a college consortia.

Amendments 110 would change the definition of a training provider by replacing the word “person”—

I disagree. The member has always called for more financial accountability on resources. I take it that his argument is that he believes that £171 million has been diverted by ministers to different priorities, without being transparent.

That is why my amendment would make ministers set out the whether the money that they receive—which, let us remember, has come from employers, who expect it to go towards the people whom they need to run their businesses—has been spent elsewhere.

It would be fair for the Government to say that child poverty is its number 1 priority and that it will use the money to fund its priorities, instead of helping businesses. I would be happy if ministers were willing to be that transparent. We just do not currently have that transparency, and that is what the amendment would achieve.

The establishment of the apprenticeship levy was slightly different. Employers accepted that they would pay 0.5 per cent of their annual wage bill towards it and they expect that to be used to support them. Many businesses that I have spoken to do not access the money because they do not have the capacity or the opportunities to take on board more apprenticeships.

I think that it was respecting devolution. The bill needs to deliver greater transparency in relation to those funds in Scotland. Without such transparency, employers will consistently ask, “Where’s that money gone?” As parliamentarians, all of us should want greater transparency in that regard. I have consistently raised the need for greater transparency. Last week, I asked the Deputy First Minister a question on that very subject in the chamber. She said that the Scottish Government is not against greater transparency or more scrutiny in relation to the apprenticeship levy, so I am surprised by the position of some members of the governing party.

I am pleased that amendment 123 and Daniel Johnson’s amendments give the committee and Parliament an opportunity to make sure that we will have greater transparency. That is why I lodged amendment 123. I am open to any of the amendments on the issue, with a view to ensuring that, at the end of the day, the bill delivers a framework in which reporting on the apprenticeship levy and how it is spent in Scotland is more transparent than it currently is.