Chamber
Plenary, 12 Sep 2007
12 Sep 2007 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Skills Strategy
I am glad that there have been consultations, but they have not given us much in the way of meat in the strategy. I hope that the minister's further discussions with those groups will be more fruitful.
I would like to give an honest assessment of the workplace. We must examine much more closely the role of business in this agenda. Although Governments have recognised the importance of skills development in recent years, employers, in general, have not. There have been some good examples but, generally, they are not reaching the mark.
In recent years, industry in Scotland has witnessed a vicious cycle of low levels of workforce investment leading to skills shortages and disproportionately high wages in some sectors. If we are being honest, we must recognise that not enough training has been undertaken by employers and that there has been too much poaching of skilled staff for short-term gain.
The strategy talks about the need to stimulate employers, but we do not need to do that; we need to challenge employers in a way that will stimulate industry demand.
The SNP wants to reduce business rates to boost performance, and there is support for that across the chamber. However, as I have said before, we must ensure that the many millions of pounds that a reduction in business rates would bring are invested not in a new fleet of BMWs for executives but in improving workplace productivity. That is why this Government must incentivise skills development and reward companies that invest in their workforce by giving them favourable business rates. That would be a measure of real partnership.
What about people who are already in work? There is no doubt that making FE and HE more financially attractive to school leavers is laudable, but that must not be done at the expense of people who want to return to work and get back into learning.
As Iain Gray said, more than 70 per cent of the workforce will still be in work in 20 years' time. From my experience, I know that discussions about moving on happen in workplaces all over the country. I have had such discussions with colleagues—not since I have been in the Parliament, but in previous jobs. However, the reality is that for someone who has a job and is paying rent or a mortgage, and who may have a young family, entering part-time learning is daunting enough—they can almost forget it. As for full-time learning, they can forget that. What support will the strategy give people in such situations?
The strategy says that about 375,000 people moved between jobs or into employment in 2006. That figure will need to increase if we are to match the pace of economic change in the future, but it will not increase unless we make going into part-time or full-time learning easier for people.
I will not spend too much time on trade union learning, as I have rattled off some of the figures before, but with the minimum of dialogue with the trade union movement the strategy could have made several commitments. The Scottish union learning fund has been successful—there is lots of evidence on what it achieves and where it fits in—so why has no commitment been made to provide finances to expand it? That is a no-brainer.
What about apprenticeships? Employers are crying out for targets and for more support to bring in apprentices. Fife alone will have two of the biggest construction projects that Scotland has ever seen—the new Forth crossing and the building of two huge aircraft carriers. Where will the jobs come from? We need to invest in modern apprenticeships, so why has no commitment been made to have more apprentices? No one anywhere would disagree with such a commitment.
The document is not a strategy but a narrative of positive achievements and accepted orthodoxies about learning. I had hoped for something with more substance and a little more pizzazz. I hope that the cabinet secretary takes seriously and uses constructively Labour members' comments. There is a consensus in the Parliament that we want to make a difference to skills, but members are frustrated that we have not gone as far as we could. We all want Scotland to compete and grow but, as many have said today, the strategy could have been so much more.
I would like to give an honest assessment of the workplace. We must examine much more closely the role of business in this agenda. Although Governments have recognised the importance of skills development in recent years, employers, in general, have not. There have been some good examples but, generally, they are not reaching the mark.
In recent years, industry in Scotland has witnessed a vicious cycle of low levels of workforce investment leading to skills shortages and disproportionately high wages in some sectors. If we are being honest, we must recognise that not enough training has been undertaken by employers and that there has been too much poaching of skilled staff for short-term gain.
The strategy talks about the need to stimulate employers, but we do not need to do that; we need to challenge employers in a way that will stimulate industry demand.
The SNP wants to reduce business rates to boost performance, and there is support for that across the chamber. However, as I have said before, we must ensure that the many millions of pounds that a reduction in business rates would bring are invested not in a new fleet of BMWs for executives but in improving workplace productivity. That is why this Government must incentivise skills development and reward companies that invest in their workforce by giving them favourable business rates. That would be a measure of real partnership.
What about people who are already in work? There is no doubt that making FE and HE more financially attractive to school leavers is laudable, but that must not be done at the expense of people who want to return to work and get back into learning.
As Iain Gray said, more than 70 per cent of the workforce will still be in work in 20 years' time. From my experience, I know that discussions about moving on happen in workplaces all over the country. I have had such discussions with colleagues—not since I have been in the Parliament, but in previous jobs. However, the reality is that for someone who has a job and is paying rent or a mortgage, and who may have a young family, entering part-time learning is daunting enough—they can almost forget it. As for full-time learning, they can forget that. What support will the strategy give people in such situations?
The strategy says that about 375,000 people moved between jobs or into employment in 2006. That figure will need to increase if we are to match the pace of economic change in the future, but it will not increase unless we make going into part-time or full-time learning easier for people.
I will not spend too much time on trade union learning, as I have rattled off some of the figures before, but with the minimum of dialogue with the trade union movement the strategy could have made several commitments. The Scottish union learning fund has been successful—there is lots of evidence on what it achieves and where it fits in—so why has no commitment been made to provide finances to expand it? That is a no-brainer.
What about apprenticeships? Employers are crying out for targets and for more support to bring in apprentices. Fife alone will have two of the biggest construction projects that Scotland has ever seen—the new Forth crossing and the building of two huge aircraft carriers. Where will the jobs come from? We need to invest in modern apprenticeships, so why has no commitment been made to have more apprentices? No one anywhere would disagree with such a commitment.
The document is not a strategy but a narrative of positive achievements and accepted orthodoxies about learning. I had hoped for something with more substance and a little more pizzazz. I hope that the cabinet secretary takes seriously and uses constructively Labour members' comments. There is a consensus in the Parliament that we want to make a difference to skills, but members are frustrated that we have not gone as far as we could. We all want Scotland to compete and grow but, as many have said today, the strategy could have been so much more.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson):
NPA
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-443, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on the Scottish Government's skills strategy.
The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning (Fiona Hyslop):
SNP
I welcome this opportunity to set out to the Parliament how the Government will assist Scotland in stepping up to the mark in skills—skills for life and skil...
Peter Peacock (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
On the merger of the careers service, I regret that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning seems to be the first minister in many decades ...
Fiona Hyslop:
SNP
I will respond positively to the member. I was discussing exactly those points with representatives of Highlands and Islands Enterprise during my visit to In...
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
Does the minister accept—I hope that she does—that our further education colleges and universities, which will need extra funding, will be the main drivers o...
Fiona Hyslop:
SNP
I accept that colleges in particular—and, increasingly, universities—have a central role. It is irresponsible, however, to start spending a vast amount—hundr...
Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD):
LD
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. I want to follow up the point about what we understand to be the commitment to additional funding in t...
Fiona Hyslop:
SNP
Let me explain to Jeremy Purvis, who I think is a former finance spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, that there is a difference between longer-term fundi...
Jeremy Purvis:
LD
Is the announcement new?
Fiona Hyslop:
SNP
Of course the announcement is new: it is about money that we have. The problem that we had with the previous Executive was that it was not sure what funding ...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
Will the minister give way?
Fiona Hyslop:
SNP
I have already taken an intervention from Mr Rumbles.Working and learning are often seen as two distinct and separate entities, with the learning to be compl...
Iain Gray (East Lothian) (Lab):
Lab
On the first day of Mr Salmond's tenure as First Minister, in the very first question that Jack McConnell put to him, Mr Salmond was asked why skills had not...
Brian Adam (Aberdeen North) (SNP):
SNP
Does the member accept that Labour's UK Government and the previous Administration here presided over our having many young people who are not in education, ...
Iain Gray:
Lab
The cabinet secretary made our position clear. We want no young person to leave school without having one of the options that I described in place. The cabin...
Christopher Harvie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP):
SNP
If the proposal is to invest in children's early years provision, does that mean that we must wait another 15 or 16 years until skilled labour forces come on...
Iain Gray:
Lab
The point is that if we do not invest in early years provision now, we will be in exactly the same position 15 or 16 years from now, having exactly the same ...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
I call Murdo Fraser, who has seven minutes.
Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
The Scottish Conservatives welcome the opportunity to debate the Scottish Government's skills strategy, which was published on Monday. However, at first glan...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
How would my constituents in West Aberdeenshire benefit from the Tory proposal for skills academies when most of them have no choice about which academy they...
Murdo Fraser:
Con
There is no reason why, in a rural area such as that which Mr Rumbles represents, there could not be skills units in all high schools. We could have skills a...
Jeremy Purvis:
LD
Will the member give way?
Murdo Fraser:
Con
Let me finish this point.The important thing is that we move away from a one-size-fits-all education system to a more diverse system that provides greater op...
Jeremy Purvis:
LD
Why not make every school a centre of excellence in the provision of secondary education rather than set up a new bureaucracy, new funding streams, new manag...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Mr Fraser, you have one minute remaining.
Murdo Fraser:
Con
Mr Purvis seems to have forgotten that he was part of a coalition that ran the Government of Scotland for the past eight years. If every school is not a cent...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
You must wind up.
Murdo Fraser:
Con
As Mike Rumbles said in his earlier intervention, funding for further education colleges is an issue. I recognise that, if we are to expand further education...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
I would give Mr Fraser four out of 10 for timekeeping. Mr Purvis, you have seven minutes.
Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD):
LD
I am starting to get concerned that the Presiding Officer has a marking mechanism for our various contributions.We cannot succeed in the world without skille...