Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay. I will start again on that shortly, and take an intervention from Ross Greer on amendment 69.

I am not able to give that firm commitment at this juncture. It will be important to put before Parliament the proposals that were set out in the letter sent on Monday, but, as always, I will be happy to engage with Pam Duncan-Glancy on these matters ahead of stage 3. When it comes to wider considerations of skills planning and with particular reference to these amendments, I think that there is strong alignment across the Parliament on what we want and need to do. I suggest that we engage on that ahead of stage 3.

However, I urge Pam Duncan-Glancy not to press or move these amendments, and if she does, I encourage members to vote against them.

Before I turn to the specific amendments in the group, I thought that, to give members the full context, it would be helpful if I set out what the Government is currently doing in this area.

Through the colleges tripartite alignment group, the Scottish Government, the Scottish Funding Council and Colleges Scotland regularly discuss issues in the sector, such as challenges that arise from the college funding model. The changes to the funding model that were implemented by the SFC in academic year 2025-26 were in response to requests from the sector to address issues regarding transparency and funding comparability between learners on similar courses and colleges.

Each year, ministers issue letters of guidance to the SFC, setting out strategic priorities. Last year, that letter included specific issues for the SFC to consider when reviewing or updating its funding allocation model. As the SFC advised the Education, Children and Young People Committee on 1 October, it is engaging with Colleges Scotland and the wider college sector on fundamentally reviewing the funding allocation model.

I appreciate the drafting of the amendment, but I must emphasise that it would be going into primary legislation, which is why it is outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

I am, as always, happy to have further engagement with Pam Duncan-Glancy. In this instance, as in many others, she has lodged amendments in areas where we want to make a difference to social justice and to delivery. As I have emphasised, we must carefully consider the employment law reservation. This is a primary legislation process, which is why I am being so strong on that. We cannot move beyond the legislative competence of this Parliament. That is an absolute necessity for us all, so, without being party political, I am just stating as a matter of fact that the complication comes from the fact that employment law is not within the competence of this Parliament.

I will not necessarily give an undertaking to lodge a similar amendment on those matters, but I am happy to give an undertaking that I will be open minded and to have further engagement with the member on the wider issues in amendment 73.

I am happy to have further engagement, but we need to be careful in that consideration, as I have emphasised. We have covered the amendment significantly, so I have no more to say.

I would be happy to give an undertaking to consider that ahead of stage 3. I heard clearly the views of Willie Rennie and of others in the stage 1 debate and thereafter about the need for us in the Government to underline and emphasise to business and industry that their input through the apprenticeship committee and in other ways is vital. I was clear that I wanted to emphasise to business through some of our amendments and through the process of the bill that we want their input to be significant and appropriate. I am happy to consider Willie Rennie’s suggestions.

On Stephen Kerr’s amendment 43, I am concerned that it is ambiguous as to what constitutes

“measurable improvements in skills, productivity and learner achievement.”

Obviously, it would be the intention of this or any other Scottish Government to provide funding that supported improvements in skills, productivity and learner achievement. The terms and conditions of funding that ministers can impose on the SFC under existing powers in the 2005 act and the bill would, in my view, be the appropriate vehicle to seek to achieve those outcomes.

I have no objection to the rationale behind amendments 44 and 45, in the name of Miles Briggs. However, they name specific strategies in primary legislation that, inevitably, will evolve, even if only by name. I appreciate what the member is trying to achieve and, if he agrees not to move the amendments, I would be willing to consider something similar framed in more general terms at stage 3.

Again, I can understand the motivation behind amendment 46, in the name of Stephen Kerr. The performance of the SFC is important now and will be even more so when the additional functions that are set out in the bill are conferred on it. We will monitor the SFC’s performance during the transition to the new arrangements and thereafter. However, I am concerned that a statutory requirement for an independent evaluation of the performance of the SFC every three years could be expensive and would not necessarily achieve the desired outcome.

I will reflect on some of that shortly—and I thank Miles Briggs for raising that point.

As I said, amendment 76, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, seeks to add foundation apprenticeships to the definition of Scottish apprenticeships. The bill has separate provisions for work-based learning, which will allow the current arrangements for foundation apprenticeships to continue—and the Government wants them to continue—when taken with Jackie Dunbar’s amendment 10, which we are to consider later. That is an important point in our considerations.

It is important to note that several employers and others—I can think of some headteachers in my constituency, for example—do not like the term “foundation apprenticeship”, even though they are very supportive of those apprenticeships and of what they deliver. It is the term that many people do not like, whether because school pupils are not in a contract of employment or for other reasons. It can be perceived as devaluing apprenticeships, notwithstanding the value of foundation apprenticeships for what they achieve. There is some contention and deliberation regarding the term, and that is one reason why we were careful not to use it in the bill. I can assure Pam Duncan-Glancy, however, that foundation apprenticeships are provided for by our new definition of “work-based learning”, and I hope that that is sufficient for her not to move her amendment 76. Should she do so, I would encourage members to vote against it.

Miles Briggs’s amendment 77 appears to seek to remove the requirement that an apprentice works for reward, which is not consistent with how the provisions in the bill define apprenticeships. The definition of apprenticeships in the bill requires that the apprentice works for reward, so that voluntary work is excluded and to seek to protect apprentices.

The bill requires that

“an apprentice works for a person ... for reward”,

which excludes self-employed people. In the case of self-employed individuals, there is no obvious way to overcome the fact that the employer is also the employee and apprentice, which creates a barrier to ensuring adherence to the standards and quality requirements. The employee, employer and learning provider relationship is central to ensuring that quality and standards are maintained. For those reasons, I do not support amendment 77 and would ask the committee to vote against it if it is moved.

Amendment 27, from Willie Rennie, seeks to require the apprentice to achieve the competence required by employers. As has been highlighted by other members, that is potentially problematic. Whether the apprentice is successful in achieving the competence required is most likely not knowable until near or at the end of the apprenticeship. Further, an apprenticeship is still an apprenticeship, even if, ultimately, the individual fails to gain that competence. Therefore, with respect, we do not support amendment 27 and ask the committee to vote against it, should it be moved by Willie Rennie.

Amendments 28, 91 and 91A cannot be taken forward due to the reservation of employment law. In any event, the apprenticeship agreement addresses how training requirements are to be met and is a separate matter from the particulars of employment that are protected under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and national minimum wage legislation.

I have already explained that foundation apprenticeships are caught by the definition of “work-based learning” in the bill, so I cannot support Miles Briggs’s amendment 83. I hope that he accepts the explanation given earlier and will not move the amendment.

With regard to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 92, section 22 of the 2005 act, as amended by the bill, already requires the SFC to collaborate with local authorities on the exercise of their functions.

Amendment 92 would also make provision for annual reporting to the Scottish Parliament. Although Pam Duncan-Glancy makes a good point about the importance of clear and transparent reporting on apprenticeship delivery, I suggest that that approach should be taken holistically across Scottish apprenticeships and work-based learning. I would like to consider that further and, at stage 3, bring back a coherent and cohesive approach to reporting on key measures in the bill, including this one. I therefore ask Pam Duncan-Glancy not to move amendment 92. Should she do so, I encourage members to vote against it.

I ask members to vote for my amendment 5 and Stephen Kerr’s amendment 79, but, to summarise, I cannot support any of the other amendments in the group. I hope that I have explained why I have asked members not to move them. Should any do so, I encourage the committee to vote against them.

I thank Willie Rennie for the opportunity to intervene. The key points of avoiding unsatisfactory training arrangements and the concerns that he and SAAB have raised about block release are for the frameworks as well as for consideration here. I appreciate his point that we need to keep openness and flexibility for certain circumstances. The example that I gave was niche—I was going to say “unusual”. However, we want to keep that flexibility, openness and transparency, and that is considered in our frameworks.

I give an undertaking to have further dialogue with Mr Rennie on those points. Although I stand by the need for flexibility and allowing room for innovation, he and I align on the need for high standards and good delivery. I would be grateful for further dialogue with Mr Rennie ahead of stage 3.

As I have emphasised already, employers play a critical role in the development of apprenticeship frameworks; we want them to play that role, and I want to make that clear in the legislation. Amendments 6 and 7 seek to achieve that and, I hope, demonstrate that, since becoming minister, I have spent time listening carefully to the views of business and employers in relation to this bill and seeking to act upon them.

Amendments 6 and 7 require the SFC to

“have regard to the views”

of employers when preparing apprenticeship frameworks and before amending or revoking such a framework. The SFC is required to have regard to, rather than to consult, employers because it is expected that, in many cases, the SFC will already be very familiar with the views of employers from the apprenticeship committee and from regular and extensive engagement. Where it does not already have that information, the SFC will need to seek out the views of employers in whatever way is appropriate. Consultation will, of course, continue to be one such way.

Amendment 8 is a technical consequential amendment.

I welcome that Willie Rennie, too, wants employers to have a formal role in this process. I will listen to his arguments on his amendment 29, but I hope that he might consider that my amendments 6 and 7 have largely the same effect. The same—