���˿���

I will give a general answer and then bring in Jane Duffy, because she is sighted on that.

I would be surprised if our universities were blockers to anything. The university principals with whom I engage are very open to developing their offering, notwithstanding the fact that it needs to be financially viable for them to do so. If there is not a critical mass of students, it becomes difficult to put together a course and deliver it in a cost-effective way. In a general sense, I find universities very open. The earn-as-you-learn approach is being used by a number of universities, and the University of Strathclyde and Glasgow Caledonian University are very much developing that graduate apprenticeship approach.

Okay. I will bring in Jane Duffy, because she has been working on that.

It will not surprise you that I come back to you and ask, “From where?” That is the issue that we have. If the argument is that colleges or any other element of the landscape would require some sort of initial pump-priming support to make the changes that need to be made, it has to come from somewhere. That is the immediate issue—the budget circumstances that we find ourselves in as a result of the public finances.

However, James Withers is also very clear in his report that there is no shortage of money in the system. One of the things that I am looking at—it is not the main driver—is where we can free up moneys in the system to redeploy to areas that we need to support, if those become the areas of focus. If you are away to press me on that and ask me to give you specifics, I cannot do that right now, but we are looking at that. For example, where is there duplication that can be avoided? If that can free up moneys, what would that free up? That is part of our thinking at the moment. I cannot say that that will happen overnight, because it will not, but it is a driver for us at the moment.

One way or another, I expect us to take forward pretty much everything that is in the Withers review. We are still considering the merits of a number of smaller things but, overwhelmingly, we understand—as you can tell from the reaction of the elements of the sector to the review—that what he calls for is right. We are proceeding on the basis that we are looking to deliver that.

I am trying to be as helpful as possible.

As you know, we have embarked on a pilot project, which was open to bids. Those that bid were overwhelmingly successful. There are around 21 projects, all of which will be undertaken by universities. We extended the initial deadline to facilitate more applications.

Those projects are due to proceed over the next three months, after which they will be assessed, with a view to providing the programme in the next financial year. I am grateful to all who helped to shape the approach that has been taken.

It would be fair to say that, if there was any criticism, it would be that the timescale is pretty tight, which contributed to the level of applications that were made. However, I think that that has happened in respect of other matters as well.

The plan is to deliver those projects and assess the outcome, with a view to what we do as we go forward, bearing in mind that we want to deliver something that is complementary and supplementary to, not a replication of, the Turing scheme. I am grateful in particular to the universities that helped to progress the programme.

James Withers had a view about the lead role that enterprise agencies could take on some aspects of regional planning. I am not entirely convinced that it should be a one-size-fits-all approach. I have travelled round the country during the past six months, and I have seen instances in which other entities might be the best lead for that—perhaps the local college, for example. I am open minded as to what form that would take. That is what I referred to earlier when I said that there are elements of what James Withers has called for on which we have not made up our mind.

The committee will differentiate between workforce planning and skills planning, and it is important that we get that on the record, because an awful lot of what is talked about relates to a shortage of workforce and not to skills. We are going through an exercise, with ministerial colleagues, to plot what the skills shortages are and what form they take. If we are told, for example, that we are short of 4,000 engineers, my question is: what kind of engineers? We need to plot that and map it properly, and that needs to be done at pace.

We cannot simply do that and then ask what we can do about it; we want universities and colleges to be part of the conversation. The next question is: if those are the shortages, do we currently have the capacity to train the individuals who are required to meet those skills shortages, and, if we do not, how do we go about getting it? That is one of the immediate things that we are doing currently.

There will be geographical differences, and there will be hotspots—perhaps the member’s constituency is one of those—where there is a particular type of demand that is not the same in other parts of the country.

We are utilising the staff at Skills Development Scotland who have been involved in that work. There are not a lot of them, it has to be said—we will have to look at that—but there is some decent information that is helping to inform our thinking, and that is a particularly active workstream.

On the purpose and principles, we recognise some of the challenges. Language is important, as is the culture that surrounds all this and the appetite that there is for change. It is easy for people to respond to the Withers review and say that they agree with a lot of it and that we need change, but then, when it affects them, they are not so keen on it. To be fair, I have largely found that there is a positivity about the review and a recognition that it presents an opportunity and that, if we get it right, we can make a huge difference.

Of course, there is a bit of overlap among the agencies that have certain responsibilities currently, and that can be problematic. My job is to pull people into the room and to make sure that we overcome those overlaps. Some of the structural change that we are going to make will help to facilitate that, because we will consolidate responsibility in one place.

Perhaps one of the most important elements is the role of employers, because the employer voice, if it is constructive, will be critical. If employers tell us what they need and the role that they would like to play in ensuring that the change happens, as opposed to their simply demanding things, which is what we are seeing at the moment, we will have a real chance to facilitate the change.

I have a round table with employers coming up shortly. It is not just a talking shop; it will probably be a stocktake on how far we have come and what more we need to do. My approach is very much about trying to get the right people in the room at the same time and going back to having the universities and colleges in the room as we discuss what the skill shortages are. In that way, someone need not talk to universities and colleges separately; we can just get on and do it. That is the approach that we are taking. I am not going to pretend that it is simple and straightforward—it is not. It is a big challenge, but I think that the appetite is there now to seize this opportunity.

Universities and colleges have the opportunity to better align their offering with the needs of the economy, and they will get financial benefits from that. It will make them more sustainable. However, we need to be driven at all times by the need to improve opportunities for our young people and for those who are retraining and upskilling in the current workforce.

I certainly hope that I do. You mentioned ambiguity. The discrepancy is—rightly—between the interpretation of what was in the budget last year set against now. That is a valid set of figures. I am articulating the difference between what colleges will end up with in reality this year and where we will start off next year. Things might be slightly better than I have said that they will be, but we will have to see how that is worked through.

As you know well, Mr Rennie, the budget process is an open one, and there is an opportunity for other partners to pitch budget ideas. I am sure that the finance secretary would be happy to sit down with the Liberal Democrats, as previous finance secretaries have done, and hear their thoughts. That is not a challenge; it is just an observation.

In all seriousness, it is a very difficult situation financially. I absolutely get how important colleges are to us. With the difficulties and challenges that we face financially, we will do everything that we can to support our colleges.

As I said to Ruth Maguire, my intention is to accept the recommendation in the Withers report. I also hope that I was clear that that is with a view to expanding quite markedly the employers’ voice in the development of apprenticeships.

I make it clear that this is not about privatisation in any way, shape or form. I have found that, without much prompting from me, and sometimes with no prompting, employers recognise that they are asking for something more and that they are willing to contribute if they can get that support for their businesses. We should recognise that many employers contribute to the system quite markedly in a variety of ways, and not just financially. In the space where we may be looking for more short, sharp training courses and qualifications that allow employers to upskill their existing workforce, a large number of employers are saying, “We’re up for playing our part in that.” That will be useful, because the public purse is under great pressure, as we all know. It will be incredibly important to be able to tap into those additional funding streams, because everyone will benefit.