Seòmar agus comataidhean

I absolutely concur with the point that you are making. However, I do not think that that is an issue for the bill—I do not see that that fits into what the bill sets out to do in this space. However, it touches on some parallel work that we are doing with colleges. A lot of work is being done on curriculum transformation, and one of the things that we have recognised—which has been brought to us by some of the college chairs—is that there are colleges that see an opportunity to get more commercial income but do not have the knowledge and resources to go out there and secure it. We are doing a parallel piece of work on what we can do to support that.

There is an accompanying issue to that, however, which is that some colleges have raised with me impediments involving restrictions in the qualifications that are available to them that prevent them from fully utilising the kit that they have, particularly in relation to green skills. Therefore, I have undertaken to consider that issue further. Again, we need to think about the impediments to colleges’ ability to maximise the opportunities that are available to them.

As I said, I do not think that those issues sit with the bill, but I am more than happy to continue this discussion with Mr Briggs.

That has been quite unhelpful, and it means that I have not seen the specifics of the issue that you raise. However, I figured that you would ask that question.

I understand the argument that is made around the principle of remuneration for senior staff, particularly in the university sector—I think that that has been the biggest challenge from the point of view of the University and College Union. However, it is difficult to legislate to address that issue.

It is a fact that some of our larger institutions are competing salary-wise with multimillion-pound businesses for the very brightest and best. However, I absolutely recognise the concerns that trade unions and others have raised about remuneration packages and the increases that have been offered.

Earlier, I referred to a meeting that I had a couple of months ago with the university chairs of court. I would be wrong to go into too much detail, but I took the opportunity to point out to them how the increases were viewed out there. You are absolutely right about institutions wanting more public money at a time when they were offering large remuneration increases, particularly to principals but also to others. I read some of the media stories, and I have made it clear to them that they are expected to exercise restraint and self-awareness going forward. That is probably as much as I can do currently, but we need to see that play out.

That is an interesting question. When I first came into this post, the SFC sometimes used its powers with quite a broad-brush approach. If it saw a problem, it would take action and inform the whole sector that a restriction was being imposed. An example of that is school-college partnerships: an issue was identified in seven colleges and the SFC issued an edict that said, “We’re going to cap this for everyone,” which was not altogether helpful.

To be fair, the SFC has become much more surgical in how it deploys its powers, which is how it should be. The SFC deals with individual instances when a problem arises. By and large, the SFC now has sufficient powers.

I want to say a word of caution—it sounds as though I am sitting on the fence, but I am not—about the allegations that are sometimes made against colleges and college principals and the substance of those allegations. There is often a grain of truth in those allegations but there is also a lot of exaggeration—we have all seen instances of that. That adds to the unhelpful atmosphere in some individual colleges in particular, which is not helpful.

One of the things that has gotten in the way of resolving some of these issues is something that we will deal with later this morning, which is additional layers of bureaucracy. The SFC has felt unable to take a lead on something because the regional body has first dibs on it, and vice versa. I hope that the committee will vote later today to remove those layers of bureaucracy. That will give the SFC a clear run—with the exception that there will still be one regional board—at dealing with some of these issues.

There are opportunities in the bill—I think that Andrew Mott will back me up on this—regarding powers that could deal with issues that relate to fair work. However, I stress again that allegations need to be proven before action can be taken.

Last year, there were only two colleges that were subject to recovery—by the way, I am not allowed to call it “clawback”; it is “recovery”. The SFC has moved away from taking money back for underperformance—that is the direction of travel that was set by my predecessor. You know how flexible we are trying to be to support colleges in these challenging times. As a tool—or in any other form—recovery is not used as widely as it once was. However, there is no doubt—

I am not sure that that is necessarily required to go in the bill, given the process that Andrew has laid out. We will reflect upon that.

There is a balance to be struck here. The committee has, rightly, taken an interest in events at the University of Dundee. The Parliament and wider society are entitled to develop a degree of confidence about the oversight of any and all of our institutions. Andrew has articulated very well that we are not talking about the minutiae of the day-to-day work of universities, but a balance has to be struck so that we can all be satisfied that we can have oversight over the use of public money.

That is your football allegiance, of course.

We will look into it and get back to you.

Thank you for inviting me to give evidence on the bill.

Let me start by underscoring the bill’s significance. As Clare Reid of Prosper told the committee,

“the bill is an important step in the reform of the skills landscape”.—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 7 May 2025; c 3.]

For the first time, we are placing apprenticeships on a statutory footing, which clearly signals the high value that we place on them in driving economic growth and creating high-quality opportunities for learners. Crucially, the reform underscores the parity of esteem between vocational and academic pathways and recognises learners’ changing needs, which include more flexible earn-as-you-learn models.

In relation to how the provision will be delivered, we will maintain a mixed economy, with colleges, universities and independent training providers remaining important partners in the landscape. Furthermore, consolidating three funding bodies into two will allow us to simplify the funding arrangements. That directly responds to the point about the complex and fragmented funding environment that James Withers identified in his review. That was not simply an opinion but an independent and thorough review of the present offering. His conclusion very much aligns with what I have heard from across the landscape, and, as I recall, all parties welcomed it. The system is fragmented, with its component parts too often defending their bit. The bill is reflective of our taking an overarching view and creating a coherent post-16 offering, with all parts working to optimal effect within a clearly understood framework.

Although the bill and the simplification of funding are a fundamental part of our wide-ranging reform of post-school education and training, that is not happening in isolation. Simultaneously, we are invigorating career services, strengthening our national skills approach with Skills Development Scotland and the Scottish Funding Council, reforming apprenticeships and improving the qualifications offer. Those collective actions are designed to elevate the experience and achievements of learners and employers.

As the SFC’s remit expands, it is logical that the organisation evolves, too. The SFC will, in effect, become a new organisation. The bill will update the SFC’s governance and oversight of tertiary education, which we expect will lead to better experiences and outcomes for learners.

I acknowledge the considerable and valuable work that our SDS colleagues have done over the years, particularly their leadership in employer engagement, to build our apprenticeship programme to where it is today. Let me be clear: we aim to build on that strong foundation and not diminish the offering. We will be calling on the expertise of the staff who will transfer to the new organisation to shape the future nature of the offering.

I hope that the committee agrees that, at its heart, the bill is driven by a universally shared commitment to deliver the best service that we can for learners, employers and the economy.

As soon as we can possibly provide it accurately.

That is one of the areas that I explored when I was considering what action to take. As well as wanting to encourage collaboration, we wanted to avoid getting into a situation in which there might be predatory behaviour or the duplication of provision. There was an existing informal structure between the colleges that facilitated that. I am satisfied that the concerns that I might have had about what that arrangement might have led to were unjustified. The SFC will work with the colleges to develop appropriate collaborative arrangements, which will be overseen in line with existing accountability and assurance processes, and in compliance with statutory requirements.

It is also important to recognise that collaboration arrangements could be broader than the obvious arrangements that you might think of. For example, in your region of Glasgow, you might think about the three Glasgow colleges collaborating, but the strategic regional planning board, which I met yesterday, is working across a six-college area with West College Scotland and the two Lanarkshire colleges. I know that some thought is being given to more collaborative working between one of the Lanarkshire colleges and a Glasgow college, because the public transport links are better than they were between the two Lanarkshire colleges.

The proposed changes in the draft order will facilitate greater collaboration of the type that I think we are all looking for. The SFC will work with colleges to ensure that that happens.

The point that I am making is that the bill creates an opportunity for us to take a different approach. We know what the issues are. Moving the responsibility for apprenticeships into a different organisation will give us an opportunity to tackle the problems that we have.

I will give another example. In any year, around 10 per cent of the apprenticeships that are allocated at the start of the year come back into the system, because they have gone unfilled. In my view, that is not a sign of a successful approach. When those apprenticeships are reallocated, there are sometimes challenges—engineering is a case in point—in getting the training, particularly if someone is going through the college sector, because the college year will already have started.

There are a number of aspects that we know need to be fixed. SDS has made it clear that it does not believe that some of those are particular issues. Moving the responsibility into a different organisation gives us the opportunity to tackle those issues and others.