³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

As Andrew Mott said, we are, in a way, not comparing like with like, because a foundation apprenticeship is not a paid placement. Nevertheless, I absolutely see a role for that type of learning in the later stages of school. The Aberdeenshire model essentially treats a foundation apprenticeship like another higher—it has that status in the curriculum. I referred earlier to the model in Lanarkshire, where HNCs are delivered in sixth year, so that is another possibility. We are open to exploring all that as part of the wide-ranging look at the post-16 landscape, of which the bill that we are discussing is an enabling part.

I absolutely recognise that observation. Where there is a vacuum, there is no doubt that it is filled with rumour and misinformation. You are right—it is unsettling for people if they are looking at significant change in their working environment and do not entirely understand what that will look like.

Taking that point on board, and recognising that the committee is working on the stage 1 report, I undertake to reflect on how we can better engage with that particular staff cohort. Based on what you have heard me outline, I hope that it is clear that I have done a fair bit of staff engagement and understand how important it is. However, it is fair that people want as many answers as they can get, particularly at this stage when it becomes a bit more real.

We will take that point away, reflect on it and factor it into the discussions that I hope will take place next month.

Would that we had information of the type that the convener asked for at this stage—I would absolutely want that to be the case, but, in the progression of legislation, challenges sometimes arise, and this is one.

In all honesty, Mr Mason, I share your frustration, because, from the outset, I have felt that there is an absolute need to nail down those numbers, and there is no lack of desire to do so. As Mr Mott has outlined, we have to work through a number of challenges to get an accurate number, but I gave a commitment to the convener that we will bring that back as soon as possible, and Mr Mott will live up to that commitment. My intention is to bring that back to the committee before the stage 1 debate, so that it can form part of the debate.

I will bring in Alison Martin in a moment to answer that specific point, but I want to go back to your point about £27 million to rearrange the furniture. First, we do not believe that the cost will be in that range; we will see what it looks like. Secondly, it is absolutely not about rearranging the furniture. What would be the point if that was all that we were doing? I hope that I have clearly outlined to the committee the kind of changes that are required to be made and will be made by the bill. I do not agree with you, Mr Mason, that we are rearranging the furniture. This is an opportunity, once and for all, to knock this into the kind of shape that our young people and our economy need. We have to take the opportunity.

That is a pertinent question because, in recent times, a couple of high-profile training providers have closed, with significant consequences for the individuals with whom they had been engaging.

I will be pulled up by officials, if needs be, on the exact terminology here, because there is an issue with some of the terminology around training providers that has been used in evidence to the committee. I will pick up on that in a moment. I know that SAAS is doing some work on the oversight of training provision. I am referring to private training providers not in the sense of the people who deliver on the apprenticeship front but the training provision that is funded in the college and university space—colleagues will give you the right terminology.

I think that it is reasonable to expect there to be reasonable oversight arrangements in place. However, the team will explain the reasons; this point might go back to Jon Vincent’s ask of the committee. Is that where you are going, Mr Mason?

I want the team to come in on that, because the reasons for the answer are very technical.

Numerically, it would not. In my experience—I have undertaken a lot of engagement—some of the best training provision comes from very small private training providers. I have seen some excellent apprenticeship delivery—real high-end stuff. That is what I mean about the need for a mixed economy.

I think that we currently have one vacancy on the council, and we have four coming up. For the understanding of members, I should explain that the council is the board—we have different terminology. Therefore, in essence, five appointments will be made, and there will be a new chair. We have been in dialogue with the SFC about the range of skills that it would be advantageous for it to have at its disposal. As you are aware, the bill seeks to remove a provision for existing serving people in the college and university sector. I am more than happy to defend that. Some issues arise with people having to recuse themselves from the decision-making process because of a conflict of interest.

I do not want to set hares running, but we are in a very fortunate position in that, through the retirement process, we have a number of very experienced and highly talented former principals of universities and colleges, so I do not think that there will be any lack of that kind of valuable input to the future work of the SFC’s board. It goes without saying that, if the SFC takes on additional responsibilities, the board’s structure needs to reflect that breadth of knowledge and understanding. Clearly, that needs to be worked through, but I would like there to be some employer representation on the board.

There is an argument for something in the training space, too, although that is perhaps an argument for another day. During your evidence taking, there was a suggestion about having some expertise in financial sustainability. There is a range of needs and opportunities to support what will, in essence, be a new organisation, with, I hope, new dynamism and a new purpose and with expertise brought on to the Apprenticeship Advisory Board.

I absolutely concur with you about the make-up of the SFC’s board, and I would be very interested to read any thoughts from the committee, in its stage 1 report, on what that might look like.

Is that in relation to SAAB?

I am at a slight disadvantage, as I have not seen all of that evidence—I am not sure whether the committee is aware, but there is some considerable delay in the Official Reports of all committees being published.