Education, Children and Young People Committee 03 December 2025 [Draft]
In the bill, a managing agent is a training provider, and I value the important role that training providers and managing agents play in the current system. I would also be interested in having further engagement, and I do appreciate the constructive engagement that we had from Mr Rennie ahead of the amendments being lodged. As part of our dialogue ahead of stage 3, I would like to listen to more about those points, and I would be grateful if we could use that time to have more discussion.
Several other amendments in the group relate to foundation apprenticeships and work-based learning. Amendment 95, in the name of Miles Briggs, would bring a reference to “foundation apprenticeships” into the definition of “work-based learning”. The definition has already been designed to cover foundation apprenticeships, and will do so in a better way through amendments 9 and 10. Adding the definition proposed in Miles Briggs’s amendment and introducing provision for foundation apprenticeships when we already have provision for work-based learning could be confusing and could risk creating unintended consequences. We have also had a discussion about how we do not want to have the term “foundation apprenticeships” in the bill. Therefore, I encourage Mr Briggs not to move amendment 95.
There are several amendments that seek to replicate existing legislative requirements on the SFC to have regard to various matters in section 20 of the 2005 act or to collaborate with various bodies listed in section 22 of that act. They include amendment 100, in the name of Stephen Kerr; amendment 102, in the name of Miles Briggs; amendment 106, in the name of Miles Briggs—an amendment that would duplicate the provision in amendment 47, in the name of Ross Greer, which I intend to support when we get to that group; amendment 107, in the name of Miles Briggs; and amendment 109, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy. I do not consider it necessary to duplicate the current requirements. However, if members do not move their respective amendments, I will undertake to review what is covered by section 20 of the 2005 act and consider their respective issues ahead of stage 3.
Other amendments seek to make legislative provision in areas that would be better handled administratively. I agree with the spirit of those amendments, but putting such matters in legislation would limit the ability of future Governments to change tack and adapt to different circumstances, or for the SFC to have a flexible and agile operation. Those amendments include amendment 101, in the name of Miles Briggs, which would require the SFC to take account of “good practice”. It is unclear what such “good practice” would be or where it would derive from, and, in any case, we already expect the SFC to do that in how it operates in practice.
Amendments 104 and 105, in the name of Miles Briggs, concern SME grants, which are matters for the terms and conditions of grant funding and/or guidance from Scottish ministers. Amendment 115, also in the name of Miles Briggs, relates to cost benefit analyses and equality impact assessments, which are already a requirement for new policies and, therefore, are already catered for.
I am sympathetic to Miles Briggs’s amendment 116, but it is not needed. Transparency, accountability and cost effectiveness will be central principles in the delivery of work-based learning. Where it is necessary to say anything additional about those principles, that can be done through guidance or in Scottish ministers’ terms and conditions of grant to the SFC.
Again, the issue covered in amendment 120, in the name of Daniel Johnson, is best dealt with as an administrative matter. It is not appropriate for the bill to spell out in detail all the matters that should be covered in the SFC’s annual report. The amendment covers one important matter, but there are many others of equal importance.
09:30A number of amendments attempt to protect expenditure on apprenticeships and work-based learning. The proper place for determining budgets is the Scottish Government’s budget bill, following the budget process. Amendment 34, in the name of Willie Rennie, would, in effect, duplicate the Scottish Government’s budget bill process and the process by which money is moved from one budget line to another through the autumn and spring budget revisions. The bill includes specific powers for ministers to provide grants to the SFC to support apprenticeships and work-based learning, and its provisions also expressly require that such grants issued by Scottish ministers be administered by the SFC only for those specified purposes. Scottish ministers set out their high-level priorities for the SFC through the annual letter of guidance. Together, those provisions make clear the purposes for which the SFC must use the funding provided to it.