Seòmar agus comataidhean

I cannot talk about what was happening prior to my coming into post; I can talk only about what I am seeing currently. If we have not met the ask of employers in that regard, there will be a variety of reasons for that. Some colleges might not have had the capacity to do it, for example. That is a growth area and one that we will have to move into. A conversation is currently taking place with colleges and employers about how we do that.

You are right to raise the issue of microcredentials. They must be of a sufficiently high standard to be credible, and we will have to go through an exercise on how we deliver them. How do we become agile in that space while maintaining the credibility and integrity of the qualifications?

We also need to ensure that the qualifications that we offer are not so narrow that the course that an individual takes is applicable only to the company that they currently work for. That is an element that we need to consider. As I said, we have progressed in a lot of areas; that is one area that is still under consideration.

One of James Withers’s legitimate criticisms of the existing landscape was that there are many funding sources, which can be open to exploitation and which mean that a bureaucracy grows up. If a college can draw down from 70 or 80 funding sources, it must, rightly, account for how it spends the money, so a huge bureaucracy grows up in the college to deal with that. It would help to strip that out—with the right safeguards in place for the spending of public money—and allow colleges to get on with doing what they are meant to do. That is a tangible benefit. There is also a greater transparency for us, as parliamentarians, around how that money is spent. Both of those things are important.

James Withers’s call for that was based on his conversations with employers, colleges and universities, so there was a good backdrop to what he was asking for. I do not suggest that it is a magic wand that will suddenly make everything wonderfully better, but I think that it is a useful step. He wanted to move to a single funding body. Apart from the legislative aspects, that is quite a leap in one go, which is why I have indicated that we will do this in stages. We will consolidate the apprenticeship funding in one locality and the student funding in another. Perhaps the former is more important than the latter in real terms. Bear in mind that, in some instances, the transfer of staff in order to deliver that will be subject to the transfer of undertakings (protection of employment) regulations. That is why it will take time—not because I want it to. However, that will allow us to look at it and deliver, and it will give us a springboard from which to move on to what James Withers called for—recognising, of course, that the universities have expressed some concerns about having a single funding body, which we need to address.

I have spent the past six months really listening, and I have had a lot of detailed feedback on most of that, but I have struggled to get a full picture of the community learning and development offering right across the country. There are areas where the provision is really good. I have spoken to people who have gone through that learning process and have really benefited. In some cases, they have simply developed life skills, which is important. However, others have had the opportunity to go on to college and get into meaningful employment. We cannot leave people behind, and I am not satisfied that I have the full picture of what is happening.

I know that most people will—I do it myself—roll their eyes at the thought and say, “Not another review,” but I thought that it was important to have one. In that way, as we take forward the overall reform, we will fully understand what is happening for that cohort of people, whether they are young people who struggled in the school environment and fell through the cracks or people who are that bit older but still have the opportunity to get into work. We now have the review up and running, and we have set broad criteria and have tasked Kate Still with coming back to tell us exactly what she believes the picture out there to be. We will look to act on that alongside the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, with which we are working jointly.

Throughout the reform work, there are opportunities for elements of the system—colleges or whatever—but there are also challenges for all of them. One of my challenges for the colleges will be to satisfy us that their pathways are readily accessible so that people who are identified through CLD are helped to move seamlessly into college courses if that is what would best suit them. In many cases, those pathways are there, but I want to be satisfied about that offering. Rural settings are a case in point—is the situation different in rural settings? I want to be more assured than I am that that provision exists, because we have a moral obligation to those people but also because of the workforce shortages that we talked about earlier. From an economic perspective, we cannot afford people who could be in the workforce not being in it.

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.