Seòmar agus comataidhean

We will take that away and reflect on that.

In England, it is 15 per cent. In the Welsh system, an agent has to be a registered charity before you can do that. If things do not get addressed, capping the amount is an option. That is something that will be developed as part of the new-look apprenticeship model, and I certainly look forward to the committee’s views on that.

I do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water. As I said, CITB is a good example of a collaborative managing agent, but the numbers are troubling. This is public money—

There are instances, oddly enough, of colleges being the subcontractor—they get apprentices allocated to them, and then they use private providers to deliver the training. It is a system that we need to look at.

What troubles me more than anything is that we are doing extensive work with the college sector around enabling and empowering colleges to use their credits more freely, to do what they need to do in their localities. We are getting really good buy-in now around curriculum transformation, but I want them to have access to the maximum number of credits that are at their disposal to do that work. They are having to draw down those credits in order to deliver something that the public purse has largely already provided for, because it is a contribution to training. We have been looking at that for some time, and my team has certainly been in and about this.

I am glad that the committee has taken an interest in the issue, which I do not think is entirely black and white. There is perhaps a way through it, and we are certainly taking a keen interest in finding it.

Andrew Mott made a point a few moments ago about a system in which the allocations go through a number of iterations and, at every point, money comes out of the system because of costs that are incurred. In principle, I would prefer a much more straightforward system in which public money goes to the entity that is providing the training and it gets on with it. That may not be entirely achievable under the new model, but we have a better chance of delivering that. Ultimately, we are entitled to that level of transparency that we currently lack.

Not all SDS staff are. However, with the support of the chair, I met two of the leading figures in the delivery of apprenticeships and asked them to do the pieces of work that I articulated. We await the return of that information.

Not everybody who is working within SDS is involved in that way, but I am keen to get as many of the relevant people as possible engaged in shaping what the offering will be.

I would be troubled if there were a legitimate—I stress legitimate—concern about that. Self-evidently, we want those staff, with their expertise, to be involved in shaping what is done. If there is a workshop where there should be input from them, we would not just welcome it, but would encourage their involvement. I should stress that, quite often, I want to hear from the staff who are working at the coalface, not necessarily senior management. When I go out on visits, I am always keen to meet the staff who are delivering on the ground. I give you an undertaking that anybody whose participation in those workshops is deemed to be appropriate can take part. We are absolutely committed to that.

I am delighted to be here to discuss the draft Regional Strategic Bodies and Regional Colleges (Glasgow and Lanarkshire) Order 2025, which seeks to reform the governance arrangements in the Glasgow and Lanarkshire college regions. The draft order makes amendments to existing legislation to abolish two regional strategic bodies—the Glasgow Colleges Regional Board and the Lanarkshire Board—and designates the three Glasgow colleges and South Lanarkshire College as regional colleges.

I put on record my thanks to the Scottish Funding Council and those across the college sector who have helped to shape the recommendations that have been made to the Government. I also acknowledge the work that the committee did as part of its inquiry into college regionalisation, which highlighted the success of the single college region model and the need for reform of the regional strategic bodies in order to realise the original aims of college regionalisation.

The Government has carefully considered the case for change, and I am confident that the draft order delivers the right governance reforms to achieve our collective ambitions for the colleges in the Glasgow and Lanarkshire regions. It is imperative that colleges provide a high-quality, streamlined learning offering that is rooted in a robust understanding of local needs, as well as regional and national priorities. That is what Scotland’s economy, its employers and its communities need from our colleges. In ensuring that colleges are equipped to fulfil their role as anchor institutions, it is crucial that we reflect on experience and the changing landscape so that we can introduce reforms that will enable effective change to take place.

The regional strategic bodies in the Glasgow and Lanarkshire regions have played a key role in recent years, but the time is right to remove that additional layer of bureaucracy, which will allow the colleges to flourish under a single college region governance model and will promote the colleges’ ability to collaborate with the right partners.

It is crucial that we have robust accountability and assurance processes that hold colleges to account. Having a direct funding and accountability relationship with the SFC as opposed to the regional strategic bodies, and the chair of the boards of the newly designated regional colleges being appointed by the Scottish ministers, will achieve improved college accountability.

I hope that the committee agrees that the draft order addresses many of the concerns that were set out in the committee’s inquiry report. If approved, the reform arrangements will come into force on 30 July 2025.

I welcome any questions that committee members may have.

I echo those sentiments, and I acknowledge the impact that all the talk, over a number of years, about the proposed changes has had on those staff. I do not think that anyone who has called for those changes has implied any criticism of the staff who work for the regional body. My understanding is that all five staff who are affected have chosen to take voluntary redundancy.

To be fair, it was suggested by the colleges that they would seek to offer employment opportunities. I am not entirely sure whether that happened, but it was certainly talked about. However, all the staff have chosen to take voluntary severance. Ultimately, I hope that the skills and talents that they have shown might not be lost to the college sector.

I guess that there has been a disconnect between the expectation of what the engagement would look like in reality and what the unions took it to be. I contend that, when there have been developments in the process, we have engaged directly with the trade unions.

I also make the distinction between that engagement and the direct engagement that I have had with the staff. I have gone in front of the staff, updated them on where we are and answered any and all questions that they have had as openly as I can. It is a combination of things.

I suspect that SDS has looked—