Chamber and committees

That might be the case for some people, but questions that I have had in those meetings suggest that that is not the case, which is good.

If it helps, I note that I have also held as many of those meetings as possible without senior management being in the room, in case it impeded the staff from raising points.

We did as much engagement as we thought we could and should have done, but I absolutely take on board the criticism, which will inform our approach.

Universities are autonomous institutions, and the convener reminded us earlier about ONS classification. There is a relationship between the SFC and universities, and there is a relationship between the Government and the SFC.

The SFC is able to act only on the information that it has at its disposal. The institutions will tell you that they provide quite a lot of information, and, to an extent, they do. I want to be very careful not to prejudge the Pamela Gillies inquiry, so bear with me on that. If it emerges from that inquiry—or from any other work that is done on the recommendation of the committee—that the SFC might have done more and been more sighted, we will, of course, look at that. I know that the SFC is looking closely, from its point of view, at what more it could have done. The process is only as good as the information that is provided. I am keen to explore whether more could be done to ensure oversight.

We should bear in mind that the public financial contribution to many of the institutions is quite small, compared with their overall activity. Public money needs to be protected, so, if it emerges that more could have been done, we will take that on board and respond to it. If there are any suggestions about what could be done differently, such as changes in governance, as I have said, we will absolutely take them on board.

From your starting point, no, I cannot. I think that the committee has seen information about the amount of money that is spent on apprenticeships, notwithstanding the additional staff costs that go with that. However, we do not have that basis, although I would quite like to see that number.

Are you referring to the staff on the ground operating in the colleges? Are you asking whether the proposals represent, in essence, a lift and shift of the existing model? Unlike for apprenticeships, we intend to retain that approach. That is certainly the plan in the short to medium term.

The issue is more complicated than simply saying, “Why not just do that?” I am happy to have further conversations with Mr Greer about that. He is entitled to bring amendments to the bill if they are deemed to be in scope. That is a matter for him. I simply—

To be accurate, the SFC has been a bit misunderstood and misrepresented. It has done a good job over many years in managing both sectors, and it has done so effectively. However, all of us, particularly in the current circumstances, want there to be greater transparency regarding what is happening in those sectors and how some of the issues are being dealt with—I agree with that ask.

I am open minded about the amendments that the Government might lodge in conjunction with members at stage 2. By that point we will have greater information about the sectors, and the University of Dundee in particular. I should also have heard back from the chairs of the institutions in Scotland, who have already raised one or two things with me that they think might be helpful. I do not know at this stage whether they will require to be in legislation, but we are open to doing anything that the committee and we feel might increase transparency and oversight. However, I will not simply introduce measures for the sake of it—they need to be for a purpose and to an end.

We will take that away and reflect on that.

In England, it is 15 per cent. In the Welsh system, an agent has to be a registered charity before you can do that. If things do not get addressed, capping the amount is an option. That is something that will be developed as part of the new-look apprenticeship model, and I certainly look forward to the committee’s views on that.

I do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water. As I said, CITB is a good example of a collaborative managing agent, but the numbers are troubling. This is public money—

There are instances, oddly enough, of colleges being the subcontractor—they get apprentices allocated to them, and then they use private providers to deliver the training. It is a system that we need to look at.

What troubles me more than anything is that we are doing extensive work with the college sector around enabling and empowering colleges to use their credits more freely, to do what they need to do in their localities. We are getting really good buy-in now around curriculum transformation, but I want them to have access to the maximum number of credits that are at their disposal to do that work. They are having to draw down those credits in order to deliver something that the public purse has largely already provided for, because it is a contribution to training. We have been looking at that for some time, and my team has certainly been in and about this.

I am glad that the committee has taken an interest in the issue, which I do not think is entirely black and white. There is perhaps a way through it, and we are certainly taking a keen interest in finding it.