Education, Children and Young People Committee 03 December 2025 [Draft]
Good morning. Forgive me, because I have already spoken and have not said that yet.
My amendment 109 says that work-based learning or foundation apprenticeships must be delivered collaboratively with employers, local authorities and schools and that consideration must be given to the attainment gap, post-school destinations and rural access and transport barriers.
Andrew Ritchie from Aberdeenshire Council, when giving evidence to the committee, said that moving foundation apprenticeships from the apprenticeship family to
“as yet undefined work-based learning courses”
poses a risk that
“foundation apprenticeships will be no more”.—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 14 May 2025; c 6.]
East Ayrshire Council’s education service said that the bill
“endangers the provision of school-based qualifications and effectively places them solely in FE domain.”
In addition, John Vincent, of Colleges Scotland, said that it would be an “enormous loss” if foundation apprenticeships, particularly at SCQF level 6, lost their status as a result of the measures in the bill.
09:45The Government did not support many of my other amendments on foundation apprenticeships. Amendment 109 is a backstop that would protect foundation apprenticeships in the legislation, and guarantee that the experts in delivering them—local authorities, education services and colleges—are involved in the future development of them. Given that the Government does not support any of my other amendments, I hope that it can support amendment 109.
My amendment 114 says that the Scottish Funding Council
“must have regard to the needs of small and micro businesses”
in the work that it does. When we took evidence on the bill, one of the concerns—it is one of many—was that it did not deliver for trade, industry and businesses. One of the ways in which I am seeking to address that is through amendment 114. I appreciate the minister’s comments about not necessarily needing to state that in the bill, but, as we have seen in recent years, if something is not put in statute—if it is not in primary legislation—when the going gets tough, it usually has to get going. That is why it is incredibly important to include the provision in the bill.
I move to my colleague Daniel Johnson’s amendments. His amendment 113 seeks to ensure that, if public money goes to private and independent providers for in-work learning and apprenticeships, that we require for the public pound value for money, fair work as standard and transparency on spend. It would also require that we publish the shift in that funding, so that if it is moving from public sector provision, that would be seen clearly and transparently.
I note the minister’s point that we are in agreement that value for money, fair work and transparency are important. However, I again refer him to my comments about the fact that, if that provision is not in the bill, we run the risk of that not being done in a system that is already particularly stretched. All that amendment 113 seeks to require is that, when public money is spent by a private provider, we get value for money and ensure that they adopt fair work practices. The minister noted that, through the amendment, we would be setting out what fair work practices would be—it was something along those lines. That is not what amendment 113 says. It merely says that a provider must adopt fair work practices. Requiring the adoption of such practices should not be a surprise or news to the Government, which talks about its commitment to fair work. If it is committed to such practices, I urge the Government to support amendment 113.
Daniel Johnson’s amendment 117 seeks to place a duty on the SFC to expand modern work-based earn-and-learn routes, including graduate levels, which is why we support his amendment over others in this group that seek to do a similar thing. The amendment would apply to sectors in which there are shortages, such as the NHS, care, net zero, digital and planning. As we know, work-based learning programmes have been slow to adapt and have not addressed major public service gaps, such as NHS roles. Amendment 117 would future proof work-based learning and would enable us to address some of the significant skills and workforce gaps in the key areas where we know Scotland will need skills and people in the future.
Daniel Johnson’s amendment 120 would require the SFC’s annual report to include information on the amount of funding that is provided to employers and training providers for the purpose of delivering Scottish apprenticeships, including, for each framework, the level of funding that is provided for an individual Scottish apprenticeship. We know that contribution rates are frozen, including in plumbing and in other industries. Stakeholders fear that, inside the Scottish Funding Council, apprenticeship money could become the easiest pot to raid and that SMEs will just stop taking on apprenticeships in that circumstance. Amendment 120 seeks to address that.