Chamber and committees

I share some of other members’ concerns. I am not convinced that the bill will address the problems, because the evidence that we have had does not suggest that. In fact, some witnesses have suggested that it is not structural change that is needed but leadership.

There is a need to grow apprenticeships. Modern apprenticeship starts are below the pre-pandemic level, foundation apprenticeships—the demand for which is still clear—are capped, and graduate apprenticeships are static. The Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board said that the model is stagnant and rigid. We know that the rate of positive destinations for people who leave secondary 4 is decreasing and that tens of thousands of young people in Scotland are not in education, employment or training.

The way that people have characterised the problem is not to say that we need structural change but to say that cultural barriers are holding back work-based learning, that demand for training in technical and engineering-based occupations outstrips supply and that there are skills shortages in various areas. Will the minister set out how the bill will address any of that and when we can expect to see more people enjoying an apprenticeship?

I do not think that anyone has put it to us that bureaucratic structural change is necessary in order to address what does not work well.

I can see that Mr Mott is looking to come in—I will just finish my point. One of the concerns that we have heard about the move is that SDS has stronger links with business and industry than the Scottish Funding Council. The minister spoke about the need for a connection between careers advice in schools, national skills planning and apprenticeships. That will all be dismantled if we take one part of the SDS product and put it elsewhere.

What is the minister’s response to the concern that business and industry will not be able to influence the process and, therefore, will not be able to address some of the key issues that act as barriers to young people accessing apprenticeships?

I share Ross Greer’s concern, but I also appreciate the recognition for the staff concerned that the minister has put on the record.

I have two questions, the first of which builds on the answers that the minister gave to John Mason. What, specifically, is his vision for a co-ordinated approach? How does he hope that the colleges in the region will collaborate to provide the best opportunity for skills across the region?

Secondly, when can colleges in Glasgow expect to receive any of the funds—to the tune of about £500,000, I think—that were top sliced for the board?

Thank you—I appreciate that.

I thank the panel for the evidence that they provided in advance and the evidence that they have given today.

Paul, I want to explore with you the concerns that we have heard in our inquiry, but also in other areas and other spaces, about the winding down of the board. What has been communicated to you and the members of the board, and what has been communicated to employer and apprentice voices, during the transition?

I presume that, if the structural changes that the bill proposes remain, you will be included in the committees and the proposed employer network within the SFC. How would that affect you?

I had wanted to explore some of the engagement with staff, but I think that we have done so already, which has been helpful.

I have only one other question outstanding. Liam, in your evidence, you said there was an impending organisational vacuum with large-scale changes taking place without the planning or resources necessary to manage them safely or fairly. Can you tell us what you mean by “organisational vacuum”?

I will ask about some of the powers in the bill around finance, accountability and fair work.

In your submissions, you have all highlighted concern about the SFC’s powers undermining academic freedoms. Everyone has picked up on that point, which we need to consider.

Nicola Jackson, you said that you support financial oversight of post-16 institutions, but that it must be linked to fair work outcomes and public accountability. Mary Senior, your submission highlighted that it is important to ensure that all education providers that receive public funds meet national standards for quality, accountability and employability practices.

With that in mind, my question concerns the proposals that are included in the bill around the monitoring and reporting of matters relating to the financial sustainability of post-16 education bodies. To what extent do you think that the proposed powers could improve the SFC’s ability to identify at-risk institutions, for example, and how might the proposals be further strengthened?

Does the bill need to be strengthened to do that? Mary Senior pointed out that we might want to wait until the Pamela Gillies report concludes in relation to responsibilities, but do you have any sense of what is needed to strengthen that accountability?