Seòmar agus comataidhean

Some of that work is being undertaken by the careers collaborative under Grahame Smith, but we have to expand on that. Like you, I have seen fantastic examples, but I want to be satisfied that that is available to all. For example, I attended a careers fair in Edinburgh where hundreds of young people were bussed in to hear about the full range of offers. I was particularly impressed that there was a separate section of the building for young people who had autism or other needs and needed a quieter space for conversations, away from the mayhem in the main hall. A lot of thought had gone into how to meet everyone’s needs.

We absolutely must have everyone doing their bit. DYW has a particular role and we must maintain and support that while the careers service does what it does. There are no turf wars: everyone has to do their thing, in collaboration. The easy bit is that we are not starting from scratch: what we need is there, but we have to build on that to have a more cohesive and consistent offer across the country. That is where we can make giant strides.

I recognise the Auditor General’s comment, but I also recognise Audit Scotland’s comment about the potential for the changes that we are making to improve the landscape in which the colleges operate.

Future delivery in the college sector will be shaped by our reforms and jointly by us and the colleges. That will absolutely recognise the financial challenges that they face but also the opportunities that they have. I fully accept that there is a short-term financial challenge, but we must move quickly to take advantage of the opportunities.

There will, of course be some difficult decisions. We must be realistic. If we do not have sufficient student numbers for a college course to be delivered in every locality, we may well need to move to a model of having centres of excellence and then to support young people to make travel arrangements. I am speculating here, but that is the kind of thinking that we are going through at the moment. What do we need to do to make colleges more sustainable and viable, and with a realistic offering that aligns better with the needs of employers and of the economy? In some colleges there may be a pivoting to focus on something that they have not done up to now.

We need to look at some courses, too. Are they absolutely fit for purpose and do they meet evolving needs? That applies particularly to green skills, which does not just mean fitting solar panels or air-source heat pumps, because there is a joinery element to that, too.

We do not have an immediate plan, but we are working towards having a direction for the colleges that is shaped by them and will make them more sustainable and viable. Does that answer your question?

I will pick up on the immediate point about the budget situation. The starting point for colleges next year will be slightly better—only slightly better, I stress—than the finishing point for this year. As you alluded, changes were made during the year to the budget that was originally set out. Against what the colleges have ended up with this financial year, we believe that the starting point for next year will be slightly better.

I recognise that there is inflation and so on. However, on your point, having less money in real terms—I accept that that is the case—does not help the situation, but I have to balance the circumstances and we are where we are with the budget that is available to us. Over the next month or so, the SFC will be going through a process, not just with colleges but with universities. We are looking at how that financial settlement is delivered in a way that is—you might say—the least harmful but, certainly, in a way that better facilitates addressing the challenges that they face.

With respect, convener, when I was a member of this committee, I remember my predecessors sitting here and making the point that, for that particular purpose and for others, the money would have to be found from somewhere.

To be fair, the then cabinet secretary was not in a position to do that at the time.

Happy new year to everyone. I very much welcome the chance to speak about the reform agenda, not least because it affords us the opportunity to explore the topic in far greater detail than we could when I made a statement in the chamber last month.

As I said in the statement, our thinking is quite progressed on some aspects and a bit less so on others. I make no apology for taking time to consider all aspects of what James Withers has called for. I have spent the past six months or so very much in listening mode, as I wanted to develop more fully my understanding of what works well and what needs to change—dramatically or to a degree—to furnish us with a skills and post-16 education landscape that is agile and fit for the future.

I also wanted to look at the practicalities and to interrogate possible unintended consequences—not to find a reason not to proceed but to ensure that, when we proceed, a clear road is ahead. I am sure that members will appreciate that, as we have gone into more detail, more questions have been generated. However, our thinking and broad planning are now quite well progressed.

Having said that, I remain very much in listening mode. If committee members—collectively or individually—have constructive ideas to contribute, I am very much open to considering them. I make it clear that we do not need change simply because it is required; we need to deliver the right change, with the correct sequencing. That is perhaps the most important overarching element. Some of what is required will take time—especially when legislation or significant repositioning of staff is required—but I hope that in my December statement I indicated elements of our direction of travel. We can do much to declutter the landscape and refine our offer without waiting for structural change.

As I am here to answer the committee’s questions and listen to members’ ideas about this hugely important and wide-ranging subject, that is probably enough from me to begin with.

You raise a good point. We are taking account of as much of that as possible. We will not proceed with what is contradictory, but there are a lot of common strands. An example comes from the Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board’s work on how to tackle gender-related discrepancies in our apprenticeship offering. Instead of deploying that as a stand-alone piece of work, we will weave it into the reform agenda, which will pay greater dividends than will having that as something else that we are going to do.

The sequencing of a lot of this is challenging, because certain things need to happen to accommodate other things. That is probably the largest piece of work that the team is developing to ensure that, when we get to the endgame, we have done everything in the right order. The committee will appreciate that the work is complex. I am happy to commit to updating the committee regularly as we proceed, so that the committee understands fully what we are doing and when.

In the immediate term, yes—that is a fair assumption. However, there is an opportunity for colleges to get more into the commercial space and to work with employers to generate more income. On your point about the resource allocation, I note the work that we are doing on the tripartite group. What can we do to give colleges a bit of flexibility to operate in a different way if—I stress this point—they believe that that will help them to cope with the current pressures? That is another piece of work that is going on.

As I said, those flexibilities were not provided during my tenure as minister. I was quite open with the committee that the previous set of flexibilities that were provided had not been fully exploited. That is not a criticism of anyone; it is just the reality. Those flexibilities remain in place, and we are now better placed to exploit and take advantage of them.

We are in a dialogue about what more needs to be done. Lots of little things could be done to help colleges to operate more freely, and that is driving a lot of the conversations that are taking place. As I said, if we get to the point at which there is something tangible to report, I will, with the agreement of the other participants, write to the committee to outline that.

There are a number of strands. We need to do a lot of structural things to deliver on our agenda. Essentially, we want to make the learner’s experience better than it is and to ensure that employers have better access to the skills that they require to deliver for the economy and to give young people in particular sustainable employment. Those are our ambitions. In however many years’ time, the judgment will be made about how successfully we have achieved that. One reason why I have been taking a bit of time to look at unintended consequences and practicalities is to save time as we move to the implementation phase, because we will have determined the hurdles that we have to overcome first.