���˿���

I share the member’s aim of ensuring that all persons of all socioeconomic groups can consider whether an apprenticeship is the right pathway for them, and that we have that shift of consciousness in our society towards genuine parity of esteem. I look forward to having further discussions on the matter.

Amendments 129 to 131, in the name of Miles Briggs, seek to extend the duty to notify the SFC of matters specified in regulations beyond the post-16 bodies to training providers. Again, it is worth noting that training providers are largely private sector entities that are supported by their sectors but which receive public money for specific purposes. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to extend the provisions to them.

Such providers differ from colleges and universities, whom I think we would expect to advise the SFC on matters that might indicate a serious problem at an institution, or a threat to a number of institutions. Universities, although in the private sector, are fundable bodies and have the privileges and obligations that that status entails.

It would not be appropriate to require the SFC and, in turn, ministers to have oversight of independent commercial operations. Moreover, the SFC would not have the functions or capacity to do anything with the information. I think that we would want to guard closely against any overreach into business here.

Amendment 195 covers similar ground to my amendment 17, but there are flaws in its drafting. Local authorities are unlikely to have many obligations at all under the 2005 act, and none of the bodies listed has any obligations under the bill itself. Also, no procedure has been listed for the regulation-making power, which is something that I am sure that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee will have views on, too. I do support and share the intention behind Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 195, but given my amendment 17, I suggest that it is not required, and I ask her not to move it.

I will be moving amendments 17 and 23 and ask members to support them.

I hope that Pam Duncan-Glancy will not press amendment 127. If she presses it, I encourage members to vote against it.

I encourage members to vote against Ross Greer’s amendment 128, for the reasons that I have set out. In response to Ross Greer’s intervention, I offered to correspond with him, but I may inquire whether it would be more appropriate for another minister to write to him on the matter that he raised. I will make sure that such correspondence is arranged.

I hope that Miles Briggs will not move amendments 129 to 131. If he moves them, I encourage members to vote against them.

As my amendment 17 covers similar ground to the ground that Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 195 covers, I hope that she will not move amendment 195. If she does, I encourage members to vote against it.

Miles Briggs’s amendment 151, and the other amendments in the group, would have the effect of adding Scottish local authorities to the list of fundable bodies in the 2005 act, as the member has just mentioned. In fact, they would do so twice over.

The defined term “fundable bodies” is only relevant to the provision of

“fundable further and higher education”

under the framework of the 2005 act. Adding local authorities to that list would only mean that the SFC could, in theory, provide them funding to deliver fundable further and higher education. However, it would also make local authorities subject to the suite of provisions and requirements in the 2005 act that relate to the further and higher education institutions. I am not sure that local authorities would see that as desirable and I am not aware of any appetite from local authorities to be added to the list of fundable bodies.

That point is understood and agreed on. I just want to emphasise that local authorities can be training providers under the bill.

That wider context is important to our considerations and I am grateful to Ross Greer for the amendment that seeks to probe those matters. I look forward to further discussion with him ahead of stage 3 on the points raised. I also thank the convener for his patience in allowing that intervention.

To be clear, amendment 174 is not one of the amendments that I said that I would want to reconsider ahead of stage 3, but 173 and 175 to 180 are.

I refer back to what I said about the letter of guidance and the stage 2 discussions that we have had on how the apprenticeship committee will direct the SFC’s considerations with regard to the deployment and implementation of funding for apprenticeships. I will say a bit more about those points later, so I ask Stephen Kerr to bear with me.

Amendment 103, in the name of Miles Briggs, would require 75 per cent of any grants made by the SFC for Scottish apprenticeships and work-based learning to be given to colleges of further education. That would represent a significant change of emphasis from the current model, in which the majority of training is provided through independent training providers.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the distribution of funding between the public and private sectors, it would not be appropriate to set a limit in legislation. I go back to my previous point about flexibility. As it stands, amendment 103 would make a smooth transition to the SFC on 1 April 2027 difficult.

Let me turn to other topics covered in this group of amendments. Amendment 94, in the name of Stephen Kerr, seeks to ensure that every young person between the ages of 16 and 24 who is not in full-time education or employment

“is offered access to a publicly-funded Scottish apprenticeship or work-based learning opportunity.”

Although I understand that, in lodging the amendment, Stephen Kerr seeks to be useful, it would be very difficult for any Government to guarantee what he is asking for, not least because it would depend on there being employers and sufficient jobs, apprenticeships and work-based learning opportunities available. I noted the exchange between John Mason and Stephen Kerr in that regard. I appreciate that there is significant demand at the moment, but we must legislate in a way that caters for the circumstances of the future as well as for the short term.

I am supportive of the principles behind amendment 96, in the name of Stephen Kerr. Providing pathways for unemployed persons, people seeking to change careers and people at risk of being excluded from the labour market is entirely sensible; however, making selective provision would cut across the overarching duty on the SFC to secure coherent provision. A similar argument applies to amendment 97.

Amendment 98, in the name of Stephen Kerr, seeks to ensure that steps are taken to expand the range of graduate apprenticeships and frameworks. That might be the right approach in practice, but we would not want to constrain ourselves in primary legislation. In the future, it might be more efficient to have, say, fewer broader frameworks rather than a proliferation of frameworks. Hypothetically, a broad framework that covered the health professions might be preferred over a number of frameworks covering individual professions. We must create capacity for flexibility.

Again, I share the ambition behind amendment 99, in the name of Stephen Kerr, for year-on-year growth in the number of apprenticeships. However, it is important to note that there are certain constraints on the number of apprenticeships that the Government and the Parliament simply cannot control, including whether employers are willing to take them on. In a recession, businesses might be reluctant to hire, so it might be harder to secure the number of apprenticeship starts.

We will discuss the apprenticeship levy in later groups of amendments, but the fact is that the situation is not as Stephen Kerr sets out. It is more complicated and challenging than that, but I will comment on the apprenticeship levy specifically later.

Last week, I acknowledged, in answer to a general question in the chamber, that there is unmet demand. Indeed, one of the reasons for taking this primary legislation through the Parliament is to have a better arrangement for meeting unmet demand in the period ahead. I would also point to the support that the bill has had from the Federation of Small Businesses, which represents the many businesses in the SME sector that are very supportive of the bill. The current system is quite challenging for some SME businesses, and we want to improve the system for them. That is one of the strong reasons why the Parliament passing the bill is the right thing to do, and I look forward to Stephen Kerr’s support at the end of stage 3.

On a wider point, I do appreciate that Stephen Kerr and I did not have any engagement ahead of stage 2. Obviously, I engage with all members of the committee, but, if Stephen Kerr would like to engage with me ahead of stage 3, I would be happy to facilitate that and to listen to him.

Amendment 108, in the name of Miles Briggs, would have no effect; the SFC would, in any case, have to specify the amount of grant that it awarded to a local authority. The bill gives ministers the power to set out in regulations the criteria for a person to be a training provider, and SDS funds a broad range of such providers. Indeed, sometimes the employer is the training provider.

Amendment 110, in the name of Miles Briggs, would potentially preclude some employers and other forms of training providers.

Amendments 111, 112 and 118, also in the name of Miles Briggs, also attempt to delegate the SFC’s duty to secure Scottish apprenticeships and work-based learning to colleges and to do so on a regional basis. The amendments would allow colleges to act as managing agents, and they attempt to restrict the managing agent fee that colleges can retain.

The bill does not prevent a college from acting as a training provider, and, therefore, as a managing agent, but it would be a very significant departure from current arrangements and would lack the statutory processes and safeguards that apply to the SFC in managing funding. There is also a danger that there would not be coherent provision across Scotland. I am supportive of creating a strong regional partnership, something that I know that Miles Briggs is exercised about, but I believe that that can be done through the bill’s existing provisions and the 2005 act. Therefore, with respect, I am not able to support the amendments.

Amendment 113, in the name of Daniel Johnson, embodies reasonable points about value for money, transparency and fair work practices. However, it is not clear whether the amendment would exclude colleges, given that they are public sector bodies. It is also unclear how the SFC would assess what constitutes value for money and what mechanisms would be used to assess transparent spend. In any event, it is likely that to prescribe fair work practices in such a way would be beyond the legislative competence of the Government and the Parliament, as we discussed last week in relation to other amendments.

I do agree with the intent behind amendment 114, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, but I ask her not to move it, so that I can consider the framing ahead of stage 3 in relation to amending section 20 of the 2005 act.

I have heard before the misconception about apprenticeships not being a priority for the SFC, should the Parliament pass the bill and it be implemented. I want to underline again this Government’s commitment to providing apprenticeships. We are providing a record level of apprenticeships and are seeking to enhance that provision. As I mentioned earlier, the letter of guidance will set ministerial priorities, so it will be up to the Scottish ministers to stipulate the priorities of the Government. I urge colleagues to be cautious about insinuating that apprenticeships will not be a priority for the SFC, because there is no evidence of that.

The language that Pam Duncan-Glancy used at the end of her comments is, again, unhelpful. I know that it is a good line for a press release, but the bill is about making serious institutional change, based on the recommendations of the Withers report, in order to improve our system and to meet the needs of the modern economy and of learners, and enhance opportunities by funding apprenticeships, colleges and universities through the same institution.

As was rightly emphasised, the body will be a redesigned institution, which will incorporate many of the staff from SFC. We have discussed, particularly in the stage 1 debate in the chamber, the importance of their role and expertise, and how much their contribution is valued now and will be in the redesigned model.

On the safe transfer of powers, the SFC will be ready for 1 April 2027. It is the new information technology system—[Interruption.]

I clarify that the SFC will be ready from 1 April 2027. The points that Pam Duncan-Glancy referenced with regard to 2029 relate to the new information technology system. I do not want to make any further comments on her amendments. I know that Pam Duncan-Glancy, like me, wants to make the skills system as good as possible. I look forward to hearing more on her amendments.