Meeting of the Parliament 25 October 2023
I echo Murdo Fraser’s opening lament by noting that, in closing a debate as important as one that is about ensuring that Scotland’s skills system is fit for the future, I have a mere four minutes to hit the main points. As many members have said this afternoon, this is perhaps the key issue that we must address if we are to sort out Scotland’s economy and give our young and not-so-young people the skills to succeed in the Scotland of the future as well as the Scotland of the present.
I commend Labour for using its Opposition debate time to move a sensible motion, which we shall support. However, I find it nothing short of appalling that, despite Audit Scotland’s conclusion that the Scottish Government needed to take urgent action on skills almost two years ago, despite the Withers review’s conclusion that skills delivery has lacked clear leadership and direction, and despite the substantial structural change that is recommended to ensure that the skills system is fit for the future, the Scottish Government has failed to bring such a debate to the chamber and give us proper debate time, just as, as Daniel Johnson pointed out, it has been largely silent since the Withers review.
This afternoon, we have heard that we all agree that Scotland urgently needs a vision for a flexible and responsive skills delivery system that is fit for the future, but we will not get to that by slashing around 150,000 college places since 2007, especially when, as Willie Rennie said, the Fraser of Allander Institute reports that college graduates will benefit the Scottish economy by around £52 billion over their working lives. We will not get there by seriously underfunding our further education sector and then, as Colin Smyth said, whipping a further £26 million away from it. We will not get there by failing to be transparent about funding from the apprenticeship levy and, as Pam Gosal highlighted, by delaying funding to training providers and learners, or by making it difficult to access flexible workforce development funding, as Murdo Fraser said, or by simply accepting a situation in which there are 350 fewer science teachers, 300 fewer maths teachers and 65 fewer physics teachers in 2022 than there were in 2008.
However, we have heard that things such as parity of esteem between further education, higher education and apprenticeships, as demanded by the Conservative amendment, will help. Increasing and properly funding the number of apprenticeships will help, alongside clarity and transparency around the levy. Offering every adult access to skills funding through a right-to-retrain programme will help. Taking note of the recommendations in the Withers review, such as ending the duplication of bodies and the creation of a targeted skills development board that directs funding and opportunities to industries and areas where there is a workforce shortfall, will also help. As Martin Whitfield said, we need more urgency and more action.
With regard to what will help, Brian Whittle also made a key point. We have so many opportunities in areas such as the green, blue and rural economies, but those are often stymied, due first to an obsession with headline-grabbing targets that are not underpinned by a delivery plan, and secondly to a highly concerning tendency to engage in silo thinking instead of the cross-cutting vision and oversight that is required. For those reasons, Parliament should vote for the motion in Daniel Johnson’s name and for the amendment in Murdo Fraser’s name.
16:30