Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

That is a very good and fair question. The bill will not, in itself, achieve any of that, as that is not what it is about. The bill will enable things.

Let me talk about the bill in the context of the other work that has taken place in order to address some of those issues. We are doing a lot of work on skills planning, because we need to ensure that we provide the apprenticeships that are needed for the economy and to give sustainable long-term employment to the very people that you are talking about. We are doing an extensive piece of work that goes right the way back to the careers offering in the country, because we need to improve that—we need to support people into making the right choices.

There are also individual workstreams on foundation apprenticeships and graduate apprenticeships. Bear with me, convener, as I want to explain those in a bit of detail. An assessment is being done on the effectiveness of foundation apprenticeships and on the wider vocational offering in schools. You heard evidence about the excellent foundation apprenticeship offering that is available in Aberdeenshire. However, that is not universal—it is nothing like universal. I visited another part of the country, where a business told me of its experience. The local authority provided it with three foundation apprentices, none of whom were remotely interested in the work of that business. That is a waste of resource and it is a waste of time for the young people concerned. At times, there is an element of local authorities using foundation apprenticeships as a means of getting disruptive young people out of classrooms, regardless of whether they are being placed somewhere that suits their interests and talents. We are considering that closely.

That is set alongside the vocational offering. For example, New College Lanarkshire is doing a fantastic piece of work with its local authority in which they are delivering higher national certificates in sixth year at school. We are looking at that in the round with a view to getting the offering into the kind of shape that it needs to be.

On graduate apprenticeships, a workstream is well under way, which is being led by the principal of Glasgow Caledonian University. I charged him with the task of coming back to me with a more wide-ranging model that would be better aligned with the needs of the economy. He has been given a blank sheet of paper to get on and do that for us.

That is an example of the opportunity that the bill presents. As we take apprenticeships into a different setting, we are interrogating every aspect of how they are currently delivered and how they can be made to be better than they currently are. I have had many conversations—including with stakeholders who have expressed concerns to the committee—about the opportunities that will arise from the proposed move.

SDS has made it clear that it does not think that there is an issue here—it does not think that there is a problem to fix, particularly when it comes to the delivery of modern apprenticeships. I think that there is a problem to fix—I hear that loud and clear from stakeholders. We have spent a lot of time engaging with stakeholders since the Withers review came out.

I will give some examples—several of which have been raised with the committee—of things that the bill will enable us to tackle through the work that is already well under way. Phiona Rae of Tullos Training said that a bureaucracy had grown up around apprenticeship delivery. I have heard other training providers, particularly private providers, say that. We will explore that.

The committee has heard about how managing agents operate, which involves the retention of a sizeable proportion of the moneys that are contributed to training. Again, that is an issue that we have been heavily involved in looking at, because it troubles me.

The fact that we have a process whereby the apprenticeships that are allocated can run over more than one year, in a one-plus-one model, ties our hands with regard to our ability to be more agile. A case in point is the fact that we have identified a pressing need in the economy in relation to engineering, but if we wanted to be able to pivot a little to focus on that in the next year, under the current model, we could not—our hands are tied.

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.

Do you want to answer that, Jess?

The colleges were already participating in such activity under the regional model. One area that I explored yesterday—I have done this in a number of forums—was the need to ensure that, if economic planning is taking place in an area in relation to things such as city deals or green freeports, or at a more localised level, the cost that might be incurred by the colleges is factored in, and additionality is provided to meet the additional asks of colleges in specific areas. That was one of the issues that we discussed yesterday.

Extensive work is under way not only to protect the concept of UHI but to future proof it. A little while after I came into post, I met UHI central—if you want to call it that—which outlined a vision of what reform might look like. I had some concerns about that—you might have done, too—because I wanted UHI to ensure that the voices of the local colleges that are involved in delivery were heard and so on.

To UHI’s credit, it has done exactly that. An extensive piece of redesign work is going on. I am heartened that it appears to be taking people with it on the journey, which is essential.

Again, the process has taken longer than I would have wanted, but I anticipate that UHI will come back to the Government as soon as it has been able to firm up the proposal. It will have a business case for us to consider, but I am keen that we do whatever we can, at pace, to support UHI in ensuring that the concept is absolutely protected in a way that is sustainable for the long term. That work is on-going across the colleges concerned.

I will write back to you on that. We are in UHI’s hands when it comes to delivery, which will be determined by the pace at which it can get agreement on all that. I will reflect on that and come back to you.