Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. There has been a lot of talk about the private companies that provide the training for apprentices. They would say that they provide quite a big bang for their buck—that they deliver quite a lot for a lot less than other people do—but they are concerned that colleges, through funding, will be given priority over other training providers. However, some people think that there is a lack of clarity about the checks and balances that private providers are subject to before receiving student support funding and that private training organisations can simply access public funding without investing in high-quality delivery.

Those debates have been going on since private providers started getting involved in the provision. What is your assessment of the bill’s proposals on private provider designation, particularly regarding the oversight and growth implications?

You take your cut from it, so it does not go directly to the learner.

I will ask similar questions to those that I asked the previous witnesses. I am still struggling with the transparency of the whole idea. You are here to represent two training organisations and an employer federation. In effect, you get a wad of cash from the Scottish Government and take your cut, but we cannot see what is delivered from that, whereas, with public bodies, we can follow the public pound, so you can understand why there is concern. I know that you have said that you are audited non-stop, but it is still a concern. You can sit here and tell me that you are super cool and groovy at delivering all these things, but we need to know the facts. That is still my concern after listening to everything that has been said today.

You mentioned that most of the UEFA funding will go back into football, which is what it is all about. As someone who is involved in the fan ownership of St Mirren FC, I understand that the major budget line comes from merchandise. Any unofficial merchandise is not of the same quality and it takes away from football.

We can understand that, when a big tournament comes to town, some will want to go down that route. That is not to say that I have not bought the odd flag from the hats, scarves and flags men. It is mainly them who we are talking about. It is not the burger sellers; it is the guys selling hats, scarves, flags and macaroon bars—

I do not know what macaroon bars have to do with it, right enough, but they are always sold as well. However, the main issue is really the hats, scarves and flags guys, because their merchandise is unofficial and they get moved on. The important thing is that the money goes back into football. That is what this is all about: generating funds for football.

Mine is, convener.

We tend to see them at St Mirren park only when we are near winning something. It is never much of an issue for us. [Laughter.] However, the serious point is that it takes away from those who are involved in football. We must be cognisant of that.

There is always a place for those individuals and I think that Glasgow City Council will find a spot for them. I can guarantee that, as you walk up to Hampden from various parts of Glasgow, you will hear the call, “Hats, scarves and flags”. At the end of the day, however, the crux of this is about getting money back into football. That is the whole point and it is what we are here for.

I just had a wee look at what the process is in England. Apparently, the three-year cycle is a policy aspiration. If a school is rated outstanding, it is inspected every four to five years, a good school gets done every four years and there is full reinspection within 30 months if a school requires improvement. That is a good idea.

However, the whole point is that it does not actually happen every three years. It would probably work out similarly to the system that we have, in which we ensure that, when there is an issue, there is a process—we do the inspection and the school gets the support that is needed. That is almost exactly the same, because outstanding schools and good schools will be the ones that are—

You have taught me something today, Mr Yeates. Any time I see an independent report that I do not agree with, I will say that it is an opinion piece. That will be my defence, and I hope that my colleagues will back me up when I use it.

James Withers has said:

“The skills system is not fit for the substantially different future approaching us. We need a radical rethink or the job opportunities that arise from a changing economy risk being lost; a repeat of the 1980s.”

That is quite damning, and I know, too, that his report backs the merging of SFC and SDS. Surely that would be a way forward and would achieve what all of us want, which is to ensure that we give people opportunities to get jobs. When I asked a question about that earlier, I was politely told that it was an old-fashioned ideal that apprenticeships were the big thing, and that there is now greater scope in the educational landscape to find ways of delivering that sort of thing. Is that not what this is trying to do?

Again, I thank you for teaching me that lesson, Mr Yeates—that is, simply to diss every single report that comes in with that argument—but surely you take on board something of what Mr Withers has said.

There is more flexibility for the employers to get what they want—is that what you are saying?