Hansard

The skills debate has never been more prominent nor more important. That is not just because of recent publications and reports in Scotland. When we look globally, we see demographic change, which means that we need to do more with a smaller and ageing working population. Net zero and technology mean that the pace of change that is required in terms of people’s skills and qualifications during their working life has never been more rapid. Global economic change means that there is an emphasis on securonomics, on the resilience of individual economies and on a move away from the globalisation of recent decades, so we will need to be more self-sufficient in skills and across a number of economic areas. That is why the skills debate is so important.

I gently comment to the Government that the information in my motion comes from reports that it has commissioned and that the figures are ones that it has published. I would argue that there is consensus on the analysis not just between politicians and business but across the parties. Therefore, I wonder why the Government is seeking to amend my motion to obliterate all those observations and comments.

I believe that consensus is possible and that we need constructive discourse, albeit critical at times. We need to be frank in our reflections on our system in Scotland. If we look at the raw numbers, we see that the number of apprenticeship completions is down in 2022-23 compared with 2015-16, the number of graduate apprenticeships is largely flat and small relative to the number of people doing university degrees, and the number of employers and providers that are providing apprenticeships is down by a fifth.

We also see blockages in the system. Some 800 apprentices who started in 2017-18 have yet to complete their apprenticeships; we have year 5 and 6 apprenticeships, which should not be possible. That is down to blockages in assessment and in the ability of those apprentices to get recognition for the skills that they have acquired.

Key issues are also being raised by employers. According to the British Chambers of Commerce, some 70 per cent of respondents said that skills shortages are impacting their businesses and their profitability. There are problems with throughput in the system and serious challenges for businesses because of the system’s inability to provide the skills that they need.

The Office for National Statistics reports that barely more than a quarter of workers are also in in-work training. Flexibly provided training is not available for most people who are in work. The Withers review has been useful in that context. It provides analysis on which I think we can all agree—in part, if not in full—and some ways forward. However, I do not think that all its recommendations are of equal priority. It provides both functional recommendations and structural ones, and I think that some of the functional recommendations might be more important than the structural ones.

Our issue with the Government is not just that it has been largely silent in the six months since the Withers review was published but that it has been silent on some areas and overly specific on others. In its document “Purpose and Principles for Post-School Education, Research and Skills”, the Government essentially commits to a single funding structure and a consolidation of the qualifications and frameworks, yet it is silent on the functional issues.

The points that James Withers highlights on flexibility, a digital passport and putting the vocational and skills regime on a commensurate basis with the other qualifications are critically important. Embarking on costly and time-consuming structural reforms could get in the way of those measures.

I also note that the proposal in the Conservative amendment on putting the skills regime on a commensurate basis is of critical importance. We would vote for that amendment were there not pre-emption involved.

Even if those structural reforms were correct, I have concerns about the capacity of the organisations that would be required to assume additional responsibilities to adopt those functions.

The Scottish Funding Council has not done as much as it could do to progress graduate apprenticeships, and there are huge challenges in the tertiary education sector. The Scottish Qualifications Authority has a huge task ahead of it if it is going to on-board the recommendations of the Hayward review. I am not clear whether it has the ability and capacity to assume additional functions from the skills regime.

In the meantime, the overspecificity in those areas and the lack of clarity in others leave a huge cloud over the whole system. We have organisations in limbo, structures such as the Scottish apprenticeship advisory board essentially condemned and Skills Development Scotland looking as though it is going to be dismembered, but we have no real clarity as to what will happen.

A consensus is possible, and I look forward to future Government debates in which we talk about flexibility and additional pathways. I urge the Government to have those debates, because that is how we build consensus and a plan.

To conclude, I will alight on a quote from Jimmy Reid. In 1972, he said:

“To unleash the latent potential of our people requires that we give them responsibility. The untapped resources of the North Sea are as nothing compared to the untapped resources of our people. I am convinced that the great mass of our people go through life without even a glimmer of what they could have contributed to their fellow human beings. This is a personal tragedy. It’s a social crime.”

Jimmy Reid was right then, but I think that he is even more right now. The failure to provide a clear plan for our skills system will continue to let down people and ensure that they do not realise their potential.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the findings of the independent review of the skills delivery landscape, particularly that skills delivery has lacked clear leadership and direction, and substantial structural change is required to ensure that the skills system is fit for the future; regrets that Modern Apprenticeship starts are lower than in 2015-16 at a time when 70% of businesses are reporting skills shortages; is concerned that the proportion of people in employment who participated in job-related training is lower than it was in 2007; notes that net zero targets will require a step change in workforce skills but that the Scottish Government has only allocated 15% of its Just Transition Fund; considers that it is 21 months on from Audit Scotland’s conclusion that urgent action was needed on skills from the Scottish Government and that it is therefore disappointing that no reforms are yet planned; believes that Scotland urgently needs a vision for a flexible and responsive skills delivery system that is fit for the future, and calls, therefore, on the Scottish Government to set out its response to the review of the skills delivery landscape before the end of 2023 and to bring forward legislation on skills reform, as referenced in its Programme for Government, within the parliamentary year.