Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have covered the point about what the bill does and does not do. At all times in my engagement with all the affected agencies’ staff, I have made the point that I want to hear their thoughts. I have heard directly from them on how engagement works currently and what could be done differently.

There has been a mixed bag of responses, and I accept that some people have expressed concern. Overwhelmingly, the feedback has been constructive and their point of view has been to say, “Well, you know what? We could have done this, or you might want to look at that.”

I will give an example of that, if I may. One of the things that exercises me is that I am not sure that the current apprenticeship offering entirely captures the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the lifeblood of this country. There are two conflicting statistics—forgive me if I get them the wrong way round—but SDS says that 92 per cent of its apprenticeships are with SMEs, but the Federation of Small Businesses says that 83 per cent of its members have never had an apprentice. That statistic troubles me. There is a disconnect there.

One of the issues for small businesses that was brought home in a series of pilots in 2015, I think, is the hassle for small businesses and the grief that they say they would face around human resources and training and so on. It all becomes too much for them to take on apprentices even when their business needs it for succession planning. It was actually a staff member who came to us and suggested a possible solution, and we are looking at that.

I absolutely accept that there will be concerns, as has been expressed to the committee. I have been open with the convener about what we will do in response to that. I have been as open as I possibly can be. I have met staff members at a session who then met me at something else and said, “I did not feel that I could raise the issue on the day, but I just wanted to say.” That has all been taken on board.

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.

I apologise if I did not convey this well enough. For several months, the Government has been doing extensive work with stakeholder groups on skills shortages. As you know, there is a distinction between skills shortages and workforce shortages. We cannot magic up people, but we can ensure that people with the right skills are available.

We have been looking at drilling down into some of the assertions that are made. If I say to you—you will have heard this number—“We are short of 3,000 welders”, your question becomes, “What kind of welders, and where?” If we are short of engineers, the same question applies. We need that level of intelligence to help to shape the future. That applies not just to our apprenticeship offering but to our whole approach to tackling some of these issues.

We are going forward armed with that information, which is being developed through detailed work from particular sectors. That has proven to be really helpful, and it is driving an immediate response through our colleagues in the economy directorate. The skills and economy directorates are working closely together on things outwith the bill in order to deal with some of the short-term problems.

In the longer term, there are economic priorities, and we will have the opportunity, through the new arrangement, to feed that into our planning. An example is childcare, which is a critical sector. If we do not have enough childcare in the country, we are not accessing the entire workforce. Other sectors include planning and construction—all the obvious things. However, there are other critical elements to the economy that we need to protect, although they might not involve huge numbers.

I know that you have taken an interest in stonemasonry, and that is a good example of what I am talking about. We will always need stonemasons, so how do we ensure appropriate access to stonemasonry apprenticeships, in the interests of the economy and our young people? In relation to the careers work, how do we encourage young people into those pathways?

On the apprenticeship model, we need to ensure that the funding that is available for some of those disciplines reflects the cost. As you know, one of the reasons why there has been a reduction in the number of stonemasonry apprenticeships, for example, relates to the cost that has to be incurred by whoever provides the training. We therefore need a model that takes account of those elements of the costs, too. That is another piece of work that will inform what we do as we go forward.

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.

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.