Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

I do not think that that is a fair description of the situation.

Over the next few months, we will be able to move forward in ascertaining greater detail.

We think that SDS has taken a figure from the highest end of the range that we provided and added on a bit to arrive at the figure of £30 million that has been quoted. However, we do not believe that the bill’s implementation will cost anything like that.

We have a responsibility to interrogate the figures to the nth degree to get all the detail that is required. We are talking about one-off costs. Let us say that the figure that we end up with is £15 million, which would be midway between the lowest and highest points that are cited. That figure would be taken into account over an extended time period. If you judge that in context, the cost of £15 million, or whatever it might be, would cover a five-year or 10-year period and would not be set against one year’s budget; it would be a one-off item of expenditure.

I want to make it clear that, whatever the amount of money is, we will look to fund the cost internally within the Government, and it will not be to the detriment of apprenticeship funding. We will come back to the committee with a very accurate figure.

I will bring in Andrew Mott.

I do not want to avoid answering the first question but, as the member knows, I am a great believer in empowering the colleges to have and deliver that vision, rather than ministers dictating what it should look like.

From my visit to Glasgow yesterday, it was clear that a coherent vision of the needs of the city and the wider area is being pulled together. I was heartened by some of what is already happening—in particular, when it comes to centres of excellence. There is already something there that will be built on, and I have every confidence that it will align with what that locality requires and that it will provide an example for other parts of the country of how to co-operate and collaborate. That was heartening.

On the question about the moneys that will be raised, the member is quite right to talk about the top slicing that took place in order to fund GCRB. My understanding—Jess Dolan will correct me if I am wrong—is that a top slice of a sort has been retained for 2025-26, which is to cover any residual costs that are incurred in winding up the regional body.

We anticipate that anything that is left at the conclusion of that process would be returned to the colleges in November. Therefore, we are already starting to see the financial benefit of the change. You will appreciate that we have to complete the winding-up process, which should be done by November.

If you know me, you will know that I would work at a considerably greater pace on everything if I could.

There were two complicating factors, one of which was down to me. As I said, I wanted to be satisfied that, if we removed the level of oversight that the regional strategic bodies have provided, we would not get into a situation in which there would be predatory and competitive behaviour. I took a little bit of time to consider that—in fact, I met all the chairs and principals in order to iron out those points.

The other complicating factor was that the Withers report came along in the midst of that process. We wanted to be assured—

I am not making excuses, but I have been in post for only two years. I recall that, as we were working through the process, we wanted to test the advice that we had received from the SFC. We wanted to know whether, given what James Withers was asking for, what was in that advice was still the SFC’s view.

You will also be aware, as it was alluded to earlier, that there has been some contention, such as complaints and so on, around college activity in the city of Glasgow. All round, we probably took longer than I would have wanted us to, but I wanted to be sure that we got it right, which I think we have in the end.

If you look at some of the evidence that the committee heard, you will see that organisations have said that they have immediate concerns, but can see the potential merits in the bill. When the Withers report was published, there was widespread support inside and outwith Parliament for what he proposed. Withers wanted us to go further and expressed the merits of moving to a single funding body, but I have taken the view that that would be too big a leap at the moment. I am sure that we will go on to explore the various reasons why the change is necessary, but there is support out there.