Seòmar agus comataidhean

Let me explain what I mean. If you look at reform in the round, you will see that there is a huge amount of support for all of the measures, of which the bill is a component part. I understand the argument about whether this is our most pressing ask right now in the context of funding and how it is delivered. If you look at the evidence, you will see that all the organisations are looking for an immediate funding boost. During the 2024 consultation, 80 per cent of the people and organisations that responded were in favour of the proposal.

The bill is about delivering a coherent landscape that is sadly lacking at the moment, and I have no doubt that we will interrogate the detail of that in the next couple of hours. The legislation is absolutely necessary. It is not, by any means, the endgame, but it is important, because it would enable us to deliver many other aspects of reform that the whole sector and landscape will benefit from.

I saw the assertions from SDS but struggle to see where it got those numbers from.

Because we have to work through a process with the affected agencies.

I will ask Andrew Mott to deal with the bill as it is drafted, and then I will answer the specific points of your question.

As Andrew Mott said, we are, in a way, not comparing like with like, because a foundation apprenticeship is not a paid placement. Nevertheless, I absolutely see a role for that type of learning in the later stages of school. The Aberdeenshire model essentially treats a foundation apprenticeship like another higher—it has that status in the curriculum. I referred earlier to the model in Lanarkshire, where HNCs are delivered in sixth year, so that is another possibility. We are open to exploring all that as part of the wide-ranging look at the post-16 landscape, of which the bill that we are discussing is an enabling part.

I absolutely recognise that observation. Where there is a vacuum, there is no doubt that it is filled with rumour and misinformation. You are right—it is unsettling for people if they are looking at significant change in their working environment and do not entirely understand what that will look like.

Taking that point on board, and recognising that the committee is working on the stage 1 report, I undertake to reflect on how we can better engage with that particular staff cohort. Based on what you have heard me outline, I hope that it is clear that I have done a fair bit of staff engagement and understand how important it is. However, it is fair that people want as many answers as they can get, particularly at this stage when it becomes a bit more real.

We will take that point away, reflect on it and factor it into the discussions that I hope will take place next month.

Would that we had information of the type that the convener asked for at this stage—I would absolutely want that to be the case, but, in the progression of legislation, challenges sometimes arise, and this is one.

In all honesty, Mr Mason, I share your frustration, because, from the outset, I have felt that there is an absolute need to nail down those numbers, and there is no lack of desire to do so. As Mr Mott has outlined, we have to work through a number of challenges to get an accurate number, but I gave a commitment to the convener that we will bring that back as soon as possible, and Mr Mott will live up to that commitment. My intention is to bring that back to the committee before the stage 1 debate, so that it can form part of the debate.

I will bring in Alison Martin in a moment to answer that specific point, but I want to go back to your point about £27 million to rearrange the furniture. First, we do not believe that the cost will be in that range; we will see what it looks like. Secondly, it is absolutely not about rearranging the furniture. What would be the point if that was all that we were doing? I hope that I have clearly outlined to the committee the kind of changes that are required to be made and will be made by the bill. I do not agree with you, Mr Mason, that we are rearranging the furniture. This is an opportunity, once and for all, to knock this into the kind of shape that our young people and our economy need. We have to take the opportunity.

That is a pertinent question because, in recent times, a couple of high-profile training providers have closed, with significant consequences for the individuals with whom they had been engaging.

I will be pulled up by officials, if needs be, on the exact terminology here, because there is an issue with some of the terminology around training providers that has been used in evidence to the committee. I will pick up on that in a moment. I know that SAAS is doing some work on the oversight of training provision. I am referring to private training providers not in the sense of the people who deliver on the apprenticeship front but the training provision that is funded in the college and university space—colleagues will give you the right terminology.

I think that it is reasonable to expect there to be reasonable oversight arrangements in place. However, the team will explain the reasons; this point might go back to Jon Vincent’s ask of the committee. Is that where you are going, Mr Mason?