Hansard

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee about our scrutiny of the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill. I take the opportunity to warmly welcome Ben Macpherson to his new ministerial role, and I thank Graeme Dey for his many appearances before the committee and his input to our work.

It is quite an introduction to a new brief for the minister to have to lead a stage 1 debate during his first week. He will also be appearing before our committee next Wednesday. I assure him that he will receive the same warm welcome that we give to all his colleagues when they come to the committee. [Laughter.] That was not a joke—it was very sincere.

I thank everyone who provided evidence, either in person or by responding to our call for views, as well as those who gave evidence to the Economy and Fair Work Committee on skills delivery, which informed our report. Thanks, too, go to my committee colleagues for their work on the bill so far and to our team of clerks and researchers, as well as to members of the Finance and Public Administration Committee and of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their work.

As the minister has outlined, the Scottish Government’s main objectives for the bill are to consolidate funding for the provision of apprenticeships and national training programmes; improve the operation and governance of the Scottish Funding Council; and designate private providers for student support.

On the consolidation of funding, the Education, Children and Young People Committee could see the benefit in streamlining funding to remove duplication and reduce bureaucracy. However, we repeatedly heard concerns about a potential reduction in the number of apprenticeships at a time when demand for many apprenticeships outstrips supply. Several contributors also pointed to a lack of growth in the SFC-administered graduate apprenticeship scheme in recent years. In response, we heard from the then minister, Graeme Dey, that apprenticeship funding will continue to be prioritised in the future, which the current minister has reiterated today. However, the committee urged the Scottish Government to provide more detail on that to the sector, in order to provide the reassurance that is evidently needed.

The minister stressed that the current system needs to be improved in terms of the agility of modern apprenticeships, the graduate apprenticeship model and the consistency of the vocational education offer across the country. In his response to our report, Graeme Dey stated that the bill will enable

“an increase in the range, quality and quantity of apprenticeships and work-based learning”.

He said that it is the Scottish Government’s intention to expand the graduate apprenticeship offer to

“cover a wider range of sectors and occupations”.

It is welcome that that work will progress immediately, and the committee looks forward to being kept informed of that progress. However, it would be helpful to hear more today from the new minister about modern apprenticeships, including the plans to develop a new delivery model and how that will be used to expand their availability.

The committee heard concerns that the Scottish Funding Council does not have expertise in modern apprenticeships or working relationships with employers and industry. In our report, we emphasised our belief that

“the voice of employers in Scotland’s skills system”

must be

“at least maintained if not strengthened by this Bill”.

It will be critical for the Scottish Funding Council to have the necessary skills and knowledge to cover not only its current responsibilities, which we all acknowledge are extensive, vast and under significant pressure, but those that will be added as a result of the SFC’s new functions should the bill progress.

We called for employers to be represented on the council and for there to be employer involvement in the SFC’s apprenticeship committee, which the bill will establish. We therefore welcome Graeme Dey’s determination to ensure that the employer voice is enhanced by the bill. In his response to our report, he stated:

“The SFC is developing proposals for the potential role, remit and membership of the apprenticeship committee”.

It is disappointing that, ahead of today’s debate, we did not have more information about how the apprenticeship committee will work, but I know that there is a commitment to provide that detail ahead of stage 2, which the committee and, I am sure, all MSPs will appreciate.

One of the most profound concerns for the committee is the lack of certainty about the costs involved in the bill, particularly given how significant they could be. I note that the minister took a number of interventions, but there was only a very short section in his speech about the main issue that the committee is particularly troubled by, so I think that we would appreciate more information. There is a lack of clarity about how many staff members it is proposed to transfer from Skills Development Scotland to the Scottish Funding Council; what the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations—TUPE—implications would be; and, critically, what pension arrangements would be put in place.

The committee believes that the Scottish Government should have and could have done more work to accurately estimate the costs in advance of the bill’s introduction, and we believe that it was imperative that members had accurate costings for the bill ahead of today’s debate. I know that work has been done on that. The fact that the minister has said that the costs have been reduced by a third raises serious questions about how the initial costs were calculated and presented in the financial memorandum. The committee could not get to the bottom of that during our deliberations, either with our witnesses or with the minister and his officials.

I am not sure that we, as a Parliament, should be celebrating a massive reduction in the costs, because that clearly means that there was a significant error in the original cost and in the financial memorandum that was presented alongside the bill. It is hoped that the Government will reflect on that carefully because, as we work to determine future legislation in the Parliament, it must be with the most accurate financial information that is available.

I understand that there were significant issues with discussions and collaboration between Scottish Funding Council and Skills Development Scotland officials, but it was clear to committee members very early on that there was an issue. I believe that it should also have been clear to ministers, the Scottish Government and Government officials, and that work could have started on that at a far earlier stage.

We note the information that Graeme Dey provided in his response to our report—reiterated today by the new minister—that the range of potential costs has been substantially reduced, but the costs remain significant. The Parliament needs more detail on that as soon as possible, so I hope that the minister does not think that the response that the committee has received is the end of the matter. It is welcome progress, but we need more detail.

Because of the lack of detail about the scale of the potential costs that are involved in the bill as introduced, the committee was unable to make a judgment as to the cost benefit of making the proposed changes that are outlined in the bill. As such, we as a committee took the relatively unusual step, in relation to a Government bill, of not making a recommendation to the Parliament on the general principles and of reserving our position at this point.

I am sure and certain that committee members will listen intently and with great interest to the debate as we hear how the bill may or may not progress. If it progresses, we will seek more information from the Government as we move into stages 2 and 3.