���˿���

That is a very good question—and this is what I mean regarding the read-across to other elements of the reform agenda. Equipping our young people to make decisions that are right for them is hugely important. I said earlier that we have all been challenged by the Withers review. The challenge that I have been setting employers is that we need a careers offering that includes meaningful work experience opportunities for individuals who may see something that they want to do and need to test themselves in that environment. To be fair, there are some very good examples of that. The foundation apprenticeship model in Aberdeenshire kind of does that. There are pockets of good practice across the country that deliver that.

Just as importantly, if a young person gets that opportunity, they may well find that they do not want to take it up. That heads a problem off at the pass. My challenge to employers has been that they will need to provide for that in the coming years. Overwhelmingly, the answer is “Yes, we know that.” Not doing so is in no one’s interest. Employers are all competing with each other for the same workforce, and they have to get the right people. There is buy-in to that approach. That is what I meant by saying that apprenticeship drop-out is not always necessarily linked to the training. Sometimes, other factors are at play.

I was disappointed and concerned to hear that. I will take you through the engagement that has taken place. I sat down myself with the trade union reps at the very start of the process and committed us, collectively, to on-going engagement, and that has happened—I will come to that in a moment.

I have also directly engaged in a series of meetings and question-and-answer sessions with the staff in all the affected agencies. I have met Skills Development Scotland staff who are involved in careers, apprenticeships, skills planning and employer engagement. I have met Scottish Qualifications Authority staff twice—I think—and Student Awards Agency Scotland staff twice. I met the Scottish Funding Council team once. I understand that, in the past nine months, there have been three meetings between my officials and the trade unions as we have progressed things.

The last of those meetings was in January, and—I want to be honest with the committee—there are two reasons why there has been nothing since then. First, the focus has been on the bill; there has been no cause to consult with the organisations on anything new, because the bill has been progressing. Secondly, our team has had a staff absence with someone who had been directly allocated to engage with the trade unions. A combination of those two things is the reason.

I am meeting the Scottish Trades Union Congress tomorrow as part of my on-going engagement, so I will discuss those issues with it. We have contacted the trade union reps and offered a meeting in June—we are looking for a date that will work for them. If it is at all possible, I will attend that meeting as well to address some of their concerns.

I hope that that provides an answer.

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.

We have covered the point about what the bill does and does not do. At all times in my engagement with all the affected agencies’ staff, I have made the point that I want to hear their thoughts. I have heard directly from them on how engagement works currently and what could be done differently.

There has been a mixed bag of responses, and I accept that some people have expressed concern. Overwhelmingly, the feedback has been constructive and their point of view has been to say, “Well, you know what? We could have done this, or you might want to look at that.”

I will give an example of that, if I may. One of the things that exercises me is that I am not sure that the current apprenticeship offering entirely captures the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the lifeblood of this country. There are two conflicting statistics—forgive me if I get them the wrong way round—but SDS says that 92 per cent of its apprenticeships are with SMEs, but the Federation of Small Businesses says that 83 per cent of its members have never had an apprentice. That statistic troubles me. There is a disconnect there.

One of the issues for small businesses that was brought home in a series of pilots in 2015, I think, is the hassle for small businesses and the grief that they say they would face around human resources and training and so on. It all becomes too much for them to take on apprentices even when their business needs it for succession planning. It was actually a staff member who came to us and suggested a possible solution, and we are looking at that.

I absolutely accept that there will be concerns, as has been expressed to the committee. I have been open with the convener about what we will do in response to that. I have been as open as I possibly can be. I have met staff members at a session who then met me at something else and said, “I did not feel that I could raise the issue on the day, but I just wanted to say.” That has all been taken on board.

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.

I apologise if I did not convey this well enough. For several months, the Government has been doing extensive work with stakeholder groups on skills shortages. As you know, there is a distinction between skills shortages and workforce shortages. We cannot magic up people, but we can ensure that people with the right skills are available.

We have been looking at drilling down into some of the assertions that are made. If I say to you—you will have heard this number—“We are short of 3,000 welders”, your question becomes, “What kind of welders, and where?” If we are short of engineers, the same question applies. We need that level of intelligence to help to shape the future. That applies not just to our apprenticeship offering but to our whole approach to tackling some of these issues.

We are going forward armed with that information, which is being developed through detailed work from particular sectors. That has proven to be really helpful, and it is driving an immediate response through our colleagues in the economy directorate. The skills and economy directorates are working closely together on things outwith the bill in order to deal with some of the short-term problems.

In the longer term, there are economic priorities, and we will have the opportunity, through the new arrangement, to feed that into our planning. An example is childcare, which is a critical sector. If we do not have enough childcare in the country, we are not accessing the entire workforce. Other sectors include planning and construction—all the obvious things. However, there are other critical elements to the economy that we need to protect, although they might not involve huge numbers.

I know that you have taken an interest in stonemasonry, and that is a good example of what I am talking about. We will always need stonemasons, so how do we ensure appropriate access to stonemasonry apprenticeships, in the interests of the economy and our young people? In relation to the careers work, how do we encourage young people into those pathways?

On the apprenticeship model, we need to ensure that the funding that is available for some of those disciplines reflects the cost. As you know, one of the reasons why there has been a reduction in the number of stonemasonry apprenticeships, for example, relates to the cost that has to be incurred by whoever provides the training. We therefore need a model that takes account of those elements of the costs, too. That is another piece of work that will inform what we do as we go forward.

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—