Chamber and committees

I will pick up on that point. I fully accept the financial challenges that universities have, for a wide range of reasons. A narrative has developed that suggests that financial sustainability is achieved only through the provision of more public money, but institutions also need to look at custom and practice issues in how they operate. I do not say that to deflect in any way; I just offer that observation.

There is an operating model, certainly in some of our universities, whereby, when a new market and a new source of income is identified, the university recruits quite heavily in order to deal with that. If that market and that source of income is subsequently diminished, for whatever reason, the same number of people face losing their jobs. We have seen that in a number of universities, where there have been significant job losses.

Some of that is down to how universities operate. Collectively, the UK and Scottish Governments need to look at the financing of our universities, and I take on board all the things that have been said in that regard. However, to be frank, it is also for universities to do some work on the way in which they go about their business. I think that they know that.

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 go back to what I said to you: in the consultation, there was 80 per cent support for the move. We are hearing a bit of a conflation of certain current challenges, which I fully accept are significant, with the need to do this. People fundamentally recognised and were in favour of the need for this move, and they have taken the opportunity presented by the bill to highlight their current challenges and issues. Fundamentally, the need for this bill—and the change that it brings—remains.

I will bring in Andrew Mott to talk about the drafting of the legislation.

I have made a commitment with regard to the Government’s view of the importance of apprenticeships. If, in your stage 1 report, there were a view that you would want to see something in the bill that reinforced that, I would be happy to consider it, convener.

From my perspective—that is, from the position of a minister who is absolutely committed to apprenticeships and who sees this growing, not reversing—I do not see a problem there. If we look at the appetite for earn-as-you-learn models, the move being made in the university sector towards having more graduate apprenticeships and wanting to enhance them, and the needs of the economy, we see that there is a direction of travel. Because of the cost of living crisis, it is more challenging for young people to embark on some of those courses. Therefore, I envisage more of an emphasis on earn-as-you-learn models.

I do not see an issue at all here, but if the committee were to take the view that it would like some reassurance, we would be happy to consider that.

In terms of the money, yes, but in terms of presence in the new SFC, that will be massive, too.

In what sense?

The bill is not about providing leadership for the organisations that currently exist. On the back of the Withers review, we have spent a long time exploring what works well in the system and what does not work so well. The bill provides an opportunity to come at that from a fresh direction.

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.