���˿���

That is true, but it is also about the content of what providers are providing, with that happening on an employer-by-employer basis. Employers could guarantee the places, but they could buy into a more, in essence, on-the-shelf system, rather than there being bespoke learning. Would that simplify the system?

I will let you answer that, and then I will ask a follow-up question.

I will ask Ian Hughes the same question. We can all appreciate that, if someone has been trained in one trade on a construction site, they are not starting from square 1. Do you take the view that, if you want to train people who already have some work experience, there are bypasses and you can accredit previous experience? What do the different routes that you outlined look like? How can we make the system more efficient?

You are making the point that we need to top up the apprenticeship model, not take away from it.

I would like to pick up on the lines of questioning from Murdo Fraser and Lorna Slater, particularly in relation to graduate apprenticeships and the flexibility of the system.

Susan Love, you set out quite well some of the potential issues relating to graduate apprenticeships. The number of such apprenticeships has stalled. It has certainly not increased—once a number has been hit, there has been no expansion. What are the solutions in order to increase that number and make universities more willing to be involved?

It has been suggested to me that the fact that graduate apprenticeships are bespoke, in that they are arranged between an institution and an individual employer, might be a limiting factor. Might one solution involve taking a sectoral or profession-based approach instead of using individual employers? Are there other solutions? You were recently on the record as saying that graduate apprenticeships are a “game changer” for the accountancy profession. What do we need to do to ensure that that game-changing effect is more widely felt?

That is quite an interesting insight in and of itself. You represent a leading professional body with an expressed public view about graduate apprenticeships, so your lack of clarity is interesting and perhaps telling about the process.

Andrew Lamond and Ian Hughes made quite interesting comments about what are probably best summed up as pathways. In relation to skills, there is certainly the view out there that we need to think about more than just apprenticeships. In 2022, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development produced a report on the Scottish skills system, “Strengthening Apprenticeship in Scotland, United Kingdom”. On page 15, in the executive summary, the report sets out that we need to do more to make apprenticeships work for all people and to reduce barriers. In particular, it says:

“Adults may have different needs and preferences to young learners.”

That is what we have heard from you both.

Are we too caught up on the idea of an apprenticeship being no less than four years and being only for people who are entering the workforce for the first time? Do we need to break apart that idea and think about apprenticeships being much more about acquiring skills at any point in someone’s career? What might that look like?

I will bring in Andrew Lamond first, because he said some interesting things about that.

If we were to focus more on adult learners, what would that look like? Do we need appraisals for adult learners that consider what bits of an apprenticeship they can bypass? Should there be cross-recognition of previous qualifications? Are those the sorts of things that you are suggesting?

I have one final question. I was at the Scottish painting and decorating show on Friday and I met one of the apprentices who won an award. He was in his 30s—he had previously been a chef and then he had retrained. I was fascinated to speak with him because you do not meet many apprentices who are in their 30s. I asked him if he thought that the apprenticeship system is well set up for adult learners, and he said no. I asked whether the problem was the structure, and the key thing that he said was that the problem was the culture. As someone in his 30s, he was brushing up against employers and people on the job who just wanted to treat him like one of the young 16-year-old lads, which he was not into. He already had a set of work-ready skills—attention to detail and so on—that you could imagine someone would develop in the kitchen. That was an interesting, strong insight that I had never heard before.

Do we also need to think about not only structures but the culture of encouraging adult learners to retrain and make career changes? That will require a culture change within apprenticeships and the approach to skills. Do you agree, Ian?

I will collapse two questions into one before I move on to the point about flexibility. You have set out a number of demand-led factors for employers and learners relating to awareness and access, but do we have the right supply-side initiatives? You have set out quite clear reasons why you might want to increase the number of graduate apprenticeships. Have you been approached by the Scottish Funding Council about how you can expand that number? Are discussions with the Government and others to explore that issue taking place, or are you being left to your own devices?

I will ask a supplementary question. The emphasis has been on professions. Is there a broader point about ensuring that the system—not just graduate apprenticeships but apprenticeships and the skills system more generally—is a bit more focused on technical and professional skill-based areas as well as on the more practical, vocational and technical areas with which we might be more familiar?

We probably need a national welding academy, given everything that we need to do.

I have a final question. I hear loud and clear the concerns about removing SAAB. It is not just about having employer or industry engagement at that level; it is about having that engagement when structures are formed. The recommendation has been made in an attempt to simplify the system—that is what it has been sold as—but, although the funding would be simplified by being put in one place, SDS will continue to exist, the career services collaborative has been created, and there will be regional skills planning through the regional economic partnerships that are emerging. If we are not careful, are we in danger of making the system more complicated rather than less complicated? There will certainly be more bodies at the end of this process than there were at the beginning.

Thank you, convener. I want to begin by ensuring that I have heard witnesses correctly. Damien, we heard you say that it has been a difficult period of uncertainty for staff. Frank, we heard you say that there is a concern that we might not be moving at the required pace to capitalise on opportunities. Is that a correct understanding of your assessment of where you are? Critically, based on what the Government has brought forward, is it clear what SDS’s role will be in the future?