Hansard

I welcome this debate on the future of the Scottish skills agenda, although it is a pity that it is taking place in Opposition time and that it is so short. A wide range of issues need to be addressed in relation to skills, including funding for universities and colleges, funding for apprenticeship schemes and the future of the agency landscape.

It is disappointing that the Scottish Government has not allowed time for a full debate on those vital issues, which are key to our economy’s recovery. Having listened to the minister and Mr Johnson, I suspect that there is more common ground on the matter than there is ground on which we disagree, so a full debate on such issues would be welcome.

We agree with every word of the Labour motion. When I read it, I did not realise that it was lifted from Scottish Government publications, but that does not stop me endorsing its wording. As Mr Johnson said, we have a short addition to it, which I hope that members will look sympathetically on.

The motion does not specifically mention the Withers review but, as others have said, we all owe a debt of gratitude to James Withers for the work that he did in preparing his independent review of the skills delivery landscape, which was published back in May. I endorse Daniel Johnson’s call for the Scottish Government to formally respond to the review by the end of the year.

There are really important issues on which we need to make swift progress in order to meet the demands of industry. I will give one example. Yesterday, I met the Civil Engineering Contractors Association, which raised with me its concern about the difficulties that its member companies have in securing appropriate funding for apprenticeships. The construction sector needs to attract a large number of younger people to fill vacancies that are being left by an ageing workforce. The industry has highly attractive pay and conditions but, without public support, many smaller and medium-sized employers are struggling to afford to take on apprentices. Skills Development Scotland runs the flexible workforce development fund, which is supposed to provide funding for such apprenticeships, but many employers find it extremely difficult to access that funding in practice.

The Construction Industry Training Board made similar points in its briefing for the debate. It also highlighted important issues relating to the transition to net zero, which we all support. People who are currently employed in construction and other trades will need to be retrained if we are to meet those challenges, and that will require a stepped increase in the support that is available.

My amendment mentions parity of esteem, which James Withers highlighted in his report. When he appeared in front of the Economy and Fair Work Committee last month, he told us that, in relation to the funding of higher and further education and training more generally,

“Apprenticeships have been the poor relation.”

He told us that he

“would like to see universities having the freedom to utilise the core funding that they get from the Scottish Funding Council to deliver degrees through either apprenticeships or full-time study.”—[Official Report, Economy and Fair Work Committee, 27 September 2023; c 32-33.]

He said that we should not see those routes as separate and distinct; both should be part of the same main stream. His view was that there needs to be greater flexibility to use the total amount of funding that is spent in Scotland on skills—£3.2 billion—including using it to fund apprenticeships.

In that regard, we need much greater clarity on the apprenticeship levy. I hear from UK-wide employers that, south of the border, there is much more transparency about accessing the apprenticeship levy and how employers can get their hands on the money. In Scotland, our share of the levy goes into the block grant, so it is difficult to identify how much of that money goes into funding apprenticeships. Not surprisingly, many businesses feel frustrated that they have to pay the levy but are not able to get anything in return. The Scottish Government needs to be clear and transparent about what happens to those funds, and it can address that in its upcoming budget. We need clarity on the apprenticeship levy—on exactly where the money goes and why it is not currently reaching the front line. That is the point that is made in my amendment, which I have the pleasure of moving.

I move amendment S6M-10922.1, to insert after “skills shortages”:

“; supports the principle of parity of esteem for different learning routes, but regrets that there is considerable unmet demand for apprenticeship places due to the shortage of public funding available; believes that this should be addressed in the Scottish Government’s forthcoming Budget for 2024-25”.