Hansard

As other members have done, I welcome the fact that we are having this debate in the run-up to Scottish apprenticeship week. In that context, I very much look forward to paying a visit to a local company in my constituency next week—Orkney Builders—to see at first hand the work that it does in providing apprenticeship opportunities for young people on the islands that I represent.

Orkney Builders is just one of a number of local building firms that, working alongside Orkney College, SDS and other partners, have shown a genuine commitment to apprenticeships and skills development over recent years. All those businesses recognise that such investment is in their interests and the interests of their sector, as well as the interests of the young individuals who take advantage of the high-quality, work-based training that is on offer.

There are undoubtedly good and positive stories to tell that illustrate the life-changing difference that apprenticeships can and do make, and which demonstrate the energising effect that apprenticeships can have on the businesses that take them on. Sophie Turner, the young apprentice stonemason who, as Mike MacKenzie mentioned, has been taken on by Orkney Islands Council, is a perfect illustration of that.

The commitment to step up the number of apprenticeships from 25,000 to 30,000 is one that Scottish Liberal Democrats genuinely support. However, as I have said previously and as Iain Gray pointed out earlier, it is not purely a numbers game. Overall numbers are important, but the quality of what is provided, where those opportunities are being created and—just as important—where and to whom they remain elusive are equally important.

I am sure that the cabinet secretary and the minister will have no difficulty in accepting that. As a result, although my remarks are set in the context of a general welcome of what has been achieved with modern apprenticeships and the commitment to going further, I feel that it is more valuable to spend my brief time this afternoon on those aspects that are still not working as they should.

A clear example of where opportunities are simply not being created is young people who have a disability, who were, in fact, the focus of my amendment for this afternoon’s debate. Although it was not selected, I am pleased that the issue has been picked up by Siobhan McMahon and Mary Scanlon in their amendments, which I am happy to support, and that it featured prominently in Roseanna Cunningham’s opening speech.

Both the Scottish Children’s Services Coalition and Inclusion Scotland have spelled out in stark terms the extent to which young disabled people are being let down when it comes to the creation of education and training opportunities. We all accept that that is simply not good enough. In a recent parliamentary answer to me on that very subject, Ms Cunningham explained:

“As all apprentices in Scotland must be employed and recruitment is, rightly, a matter for employers, we do not have figures that tell us how many disabled people have applied for a Modern Apprenticeship opportunity.”—[Written Answers, 8 May 2015; S4W-25385]

However, Skills Development Scotland’s figures show that the overall percentage of modern apprentices who are disabled is less than 0.4 per cent. Over the past five years, there has been no improvement in that situation, despite a dramatic increase in modern apprenticeship places. By no reckoning can that be considered acceptable, particularly when one considers that around 8 per cent of 16 to 24-year-olds are disabled.

In England, around 8.7 per cent of modern apprenticeships are being taken up by those with a disability. Even allowing for differences in the schemes north and south of the border, such a discrepancy in performance is hard to fathom, much less justify, and I very much welcome the cabinet secretary’s willingness to drill down further and get a better understanding of why the discrepancy exists, particularly given the Scottish Children’s Services Coalition’s conclusion that

“Scotland fares worst of any of the Home Nations, indicating that major and concerted action is required.”

The consequences should come as a surprise to no one. As the SCSC goes on to say,

“young disabled people have a similar level of career aspiration at the age of 16 to their wider peer group. By the time they are 26, they are nearly 4 times more likely to be unemployed.”

Of course, the Government will argue that “concerted action” is taking place, with, for example, the allocation of £3 million following the publication of the Wood report, which identified progress in this area as essential. Although I join others in welcoming the cabinet secretary’s announcement in her opening remarks of a further £500,000, it is not clear what proportion of the overall funding will be allocated to the sorts of interventions that are likely to increase the numbers of disabled young people who successfully apply for modern apprenticeships. Perhaps the minister can address that matter in her summing up.

I suspect that ministers might also be reluctant to set targets for what Ms Cunningham called in her recent parliamentary answer “a matter for employers”. However, Sir Ian Wood was very clear in his call for

“a realistic but stretching improvement target to increase the number of young disabled people”

taking up modern apprenticeships to be introduced and reported on annually. Indeed, ministers appear to have accepted the principle of targets by agreeing to increase the number of modern apprenticeship starts from minority ethnic communities. It would be interesting to hear from Annabelle Ewing whether the Government is willing to take a similar approach to those with a disability and care leavers and, if not, why not.

Sir Ian Wood also recognised that there was nothing to be gained by willing the ends but not the means. He therefore recommended that:

“Funding levels to colleges and MA training providers should be reviewed and adjusted to reflect the cost of providing additional support to young disabled people, and age restrictions should be relaxed for those whose transition may take longer.”

Such steps are practical and sensible.

I was intrigued to read Inclusion Scotland’s comments about access by those with a disability to the Government’s employability fund. As the aim of the fund is

“to support activity that will help people to develop the skills they need to secure a job or progress to more advanced forms of training”,

one would be forgiven for thinking that the proportion of starts by people with a disability would be relatively high. In fact, the figure is only 2.5 per cent and, again, it would be helpful to hear from the minister about what “major and concerted action” is being taken to deliver the scale of change that we obviously need.

Although there are other issues that I could have highlighted, I think that on this occasion it was right to focus my brief remarks on how to increase the opportunities for those with a disability.