Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will correct you, if I may: the mixed economy does exist. I am committing to continuing the mixed economy approach. Yes, it can be refined and, yes, we need to drive up standards in both the private and public sectors. There is no doubt about that. There are issues. In some instances—I stress, some—I hear from employers about the experience that they have of the training that is provided in some of our colleges not being up to what they are looking for. There are issues around the nature and the inflexibility of some of the qualifications, as well as the lack of agility in the system to deliver the change that employers and the economy require. That is another workstream that is under way.

You were driving at having more graduate apprenticeships, but this is also about quality and the nature of those apprenticeships. Sometimes, young people will quit an apprenticeship because it is not for them, or it is not of a calibre that they were hoping for. We are looking closely at how apprenticeships align with the needs of the economy. That is not simply to meet the asks of employers; it is to try and better guarantee continuing, well-paid employment for those individuals at the conclusion of their apprenticeships. I do not know whether that has answered your question.

On the graduate apprenticeships point, which Pam Duncan-Glancy also raised, I have asked the experts in that space to consider what better would look like. How do we broaden those apprenticeships out? This perhaps strays into the widening access area, convener, but there are examples of young people who have been identified as qualifying under the widening access agenda to go to university. They tell the university, “We would love to, but we can’t afford to.” Because of the challenges of their family circumstances, they need to go out and get a job. The graduate apprenticeship model can help in that space. That is not the only driver for what we are doing, but there is enormous potential for graduate apprenticeships.

By bringing all that together and considering apprenticeships in the round, we can take an opportunity that we do not currently have. For example, foundation apprenticeships are currently funded by two different organisations, but they will be funded by one, whatever form that takes. There is an opportunity here to consider what we offer currently and, as I keep saying, how we make it better. We make apprenticeships better by listening to the people who have engaged with them and to the experts in the field. I am not going to sit here and tell the committee that I know exactly what we need to do to improve graduate apprenticeships—I do not work at that coalface every day—but I am entrusting the people who do to support us to deliver better.

That is a very good question—and this is what I mean regarding the read-across to other elements of the reform agenda. Equipping our young people to make decisions that are right for them is hugely important. I said earlier that we have all been challenged by the Withers review. The challenge that I have been setting employers is that we need a careers offering that includes meaningful work experience opportunities for individuals who may see something that they want to do and need to test themselves in that environment. To be fair, there are some very good examples of that. The foundation apprenticeship model in Aberdeenshire kind of does that. There are pockets of good practice across the country that deliver that.

Just as importantly, if a young person gets that opportunity, they may well find that they do not want to take it up. That heads a problem off at the pass. My challenge to employers has been that they will need to provide for that in the coming years. Overwhelmingly, the answer is, “Yes, we know that.” Not doing so is in no one’s interest. Employers are all competing with each other for the same workforce, and they have to get the right people. There is buy-in to that approach. That is what I meant by saying that apprenticeship drop-out is not always necessarily linked to the training. Sometimes, other factors are at play.

I was disappointed and concerned to hear that. I will take you through the engagement that has taken place. I sat down myself with the trade union reps at the very start of the process and committed us, collectively, to on-going engagement, and that has happened—I will come to that in a moment.

I have also directly engaged in a series of meetings and question-and-answer sessions with the staff in all the affected agencies. I have met Skills Development Scotland staff who are involved in careers, apprenticeships, skills planning and employer engagement. I have met Scottish Qualifications Authority staff twice—I think—and Student Awards Agency Scotland staff twice. I met the Scottish Funding Council team once. I understand that, in the past nine months, there have been three meetings between my officials and the trade unions as we have progressed things.

The last of those meetings was in January, and—I want to be honest with the committee—there are two reasons why there has been nothing since then. First, the focus has been on the bill; there has been no cause to consult with the organisations on anything new, because the bill has been progressing. Secondly, our team has had a staff absence with someone who had been directly allocated to engage with the trade unions. A combination of those two things is the reason.

I am meeting the Scottish Trades Union Congress tomorrow as part of my on-going engagement, so I will discuss those issues with it. We have contacted the trade union reps and offered a meeting in June—we are looking for a date that will work for them. If it is at all possible, I will attend that meeting as well to address some of their concerns.

I hope that that provides an answer.

That might be the case for some people, but questions that I have had in those meetings suggest that that is not the case, which is good.

If it helps, I note that I have also held as many of those meetings as possible without senior management being in the room, in case it impeded the staff from raising points.

We did as much engagement as we thought we could and should have done, but I absolutely take on board the criticism, which will inform our approach.

Universities are autonomous institutions, and the convener reminded us earlier about ONS classification. There is a relationship between the SFC and universities, and there is a relationship between the Government and the SFC.

The SFC is able to act only on the information that it has at its disposal. The institutions will tell you that they provide quite a lot of information, and, to an extent, they do. I want to be very careful not to prejudge the Pamela Gillies inquiry, so bear with me on that. If it emerges from that inquiry—or from any other work that is done on the recommendation of the committee—that the SFC might have done more and been more sighted, we will, of course, look at that. I know that the SFC is looking closely, from its point of view, at what more it could have done. The process is only as good as the information that is provided. I am keen to explore whether more could be done to ensure oversight.

We should bear in mind that the public financial contribution to many of the institutions is quite small, compared with their overall activity. Public money needs to be protected, so, if it emerges that more could have been done, we will take that on board and respond to it. If there are any suggestions about what could be done differently, such as changes in governance, as I have said, we will absolutely take them on board.

From your starting point, no, I cannot. I think that the committee has seen information about the amount of money that is spent on apprenticeships, notwithstanding the additional staff costs that go with that. However, we do not have that basis, although I would quite like to see that number.

Are you referring to the staff on the ground operating in the colleges? Are you asking whether the proposals represent, in essence, a lift and shift of the existing model? Unlike for apprenticeships, we intend to retain that approach. That is certainly the plan in the short to medium term.

The issue is more complicated than simply saying, “Why not just do that?” I am happy to have further conversations with Mr Greer about that. He is entitled to bring amendments to the bill if they are deemed to be in scope. That is a matter for him. I simply—

To be accurate, the SFC has been a bit misunderstood and misrepresented. It has done a good job over many years in managing both sectors, and it has done so effectively. However, all of us, particularly in the current circumstances, want there to be greater transparency regarding what is happening in those sectors and how some of the issues are being dealt with—I agree with that ask.

I am open minded about the amendments that the Government might lodge in conjunction with members at stage 2. By that point we will have greater information about the sectors, and the University of Dundee in particular. I should also have heard back from the chairs of the institutions in Scotland, who have already raised one or two things with me that they think might be helpful. I do not know at this stage whether they will require to be in legislation, but we are open to doing anything that the committee and we feel might increase transparency and oversight. However, I will not simply introduce measures for the sake of it—they need to be for a purpose and to an end.