Chamber and committees

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.

It most definitely will, because, apart from anything else, there will be clear ministerial direction about the importance of apprenticeships.

As you have acknowledged, the SFC has written to the committee in greater detail. I will not comment on the evidence that was given at the time, but I do recall Paul Grice, I think, expressing considerable confidence to the committee about the capabilities of the organisation under its new leadership. I would reinforce that.

Forgive me if I am being presumptuous, but I do not think that anyone in this room thinks that Withers was just an opinion—a point of view. It was an extensive piece of work that was carried out by a highly credible and respected individual. I do not know about other members but, at the end of my reading of the Withers report, I realised that I had sat nodding in agreement with pretty much everything. The work that I have done in the period since then, engaging with business and various stakeholders, has reinforced that.

To come back to your point, Mr Adam, about some of the evidence from SDS, the chief executive was, clearly, proud of the fact that 76 per cent of apprentices complete their apprenticeships, and I recognise that that is a better performance than elsewhere on these islands. However, I am not proud of the fact that almost one in four apprentices does not complete. I do not think that that is success. Some of the retention rates in a number of our colleges are not good enough. We have to aspire to do better.

There are lots of factors with regard to young people not completing college or apprenticeships. Often, those are outwith the control of those who are charged with delivering the programmes. Members of the committee know that the way in which we measure college retention is a bit unfair on the colleges. Nevertheless, we need to improve completion rates.

That is where the read-across to other areas of reform comes in. Getting that careers offering right is important because, at the moment, we have too many square pegs in round holes. That is what is happening in reality. It is one of the major contributory factors to the rate of lack of completion.

I do not want to focus entirely on SDS and apprenticeship delivery, because Withers set a challenge for everyone—and we have all been challenged, particularly Government. I have held up my hands and said that I think that his criticism is justified and that we can do better. We need to see that level of self-awareness across the landscape.

I was struck by something that the committee might be interested in. Construction is a remarkably important sector for the country and its economy. The Construction Industry Training Board tells me that around 18,000 young people go to college in Scotland every year to study construction but that only 15 per cent of those go on to work in construction. That is an example of some of the ideas that have arisen from the reform work and it challenges us to ask ourselves why that is the case and what lies behind it. If people are going to do courses, they should surely be ones that they are interested in and that will deliver to meet their needs and those of the economy. We must ensure that we have the workforce that we need, not for tomorrow but for now.

We must be honest with ourselves, because the numbers show that we are not getting it right and we must all ask what we should do to tackle that. I absolutely agree with Mr Rennie’s point about immediate challenges, but if we do not take the opportunity that Withers has presented to us and that the bill presents, and if we do not recognise the concerns that have been articulated, what will we do then? Are we saying that we are not going to respond to the places where we are coming up short? Are we going to let this slide because we are in challenging times and it is too difficult? That is not where I am. We must address some of the immediate challenges, but we absolutely must take a strategic view of the post-16 landscape and get to the point where the young people who are best suited to go to university are doing that—perhaps by doing graduate apprenticeships—and the young people who should be going into apprenticeships if that is the right thing for them are in the right apprenticeships. That is what the overarching reform is about.