Employability
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-04365, in the name of Angela Constance, on employability.
It may be helpful if I remind members that most of our debates are follow-on debates, so if a statement or debate finishes early, we get to the next item of business earlier.
14:46
I am very grateful for the opportunity to open the debate on employability policy.
Let me first provide some context. When workforce plus was launched six years ago, there was a focus on developing capacity in seven areas that faced the greatest employment challenges. Since then, I am pleased to say that local employability partnerships have voluntarily grown up in all 32 local authorities. Those partnerships, which are supported and often led by local authorities, include all the agencies with an interest in improving employability, ranging from Skills Development Scotland and the Department for Work and Pensions to health boards, colleges and, of course, the third sector. As such, they have been well placed to create more joined-up and effective services for people who are out of work.
At the same time, the Scottish Government has done some joining up of its own. For example, we created Skills Development Scotland out of four separate agencies to act as our national skills body. We have also improved the service for unemployed people by making clearer links between the work of Skills Development Scotland and that of the DWP through Jobcentre Plus. Last, but not least, our introduction of single outcome agreements has significantly strengthened the partnership between national and local government in Scotland.
I believe that those changes put us in a strong position to achieve the jobs and sustainable growth for which we aim. A lot has changed since the introduction of the original employability policy in 2006. Austerity cuts and the global economic downturn, combined with sweeping welfare reforms at United Kingdom level, have greatly changed the nature and scale of the challenge that we all face. Those factors emphasise the need for a fresh approach to employability—one in which the continuing challenge of helping people into work is matched by an equal determination to stimulate growth and hence the availability of jobs.
That is exactly the focus of “Working for Growth: A Refresh of the Employability Framework for Scotland”. The document was launched only two weeks ago by my colleague John Swinney, when he addressed the welfare to work convention in Glasgow. As the title suggests, “Working for Growth” has a clear focus on jobs within the context of economic recovery. First and foremost, that means that we must simplify and enhance our offers to employers.
I understand the frustration that employers still often express about the difficulty of navigating our employment and skills system. I spoke to a range of employers at a business breakfast prior to the launch of the document, emphasising our desire to work closely with employers during these difficult times and beyond—in particular to harness the significant talents of our young people. That commitment is far reaching and is underpinned by our on-going development of skills investment plans for the key growth sectors in the economy.
When the minister gave evidence to the Finance Committee in June, she mentioned an online one-stop stop that SDS was developing, which would be available in September and is an effort to allay some of the fears of employers. Can she update the chamber on that—either now or in her closing speech?
Yes, absolutely. I was going to come to that point later on. Announcements about our skillsforce are imminent.
It is important that skills investment plans are developed in partnership with the public, private and third sectors. I am pleased that two plans—for energy and hospitality—have already been developed.
As I indicated to Mr Brown, SDS is also developing our skillsforce—a new service that will pull together a range of information related to employers’ workforce needs. Importantly, the service will feature details of national and local offers. To complement that, we will look to employability partnerships to develop and enhance their own collaborative offers to employers.
We have a clear strategic focus on jobs within the context of economic recovery. The next step is to ensure clear and effective leadership in support of those goals. As we highlight in “Working for Growth”, working through the strategic forum and the economy board will be key to embedding employability more deeply into our efforts to revive the economy. The work of the reconstituted Scottish employability forum will also be key—it meets for the first time this month, and it will be chaired jointly by the Scottish and UK Governments and local government. The revised forum will exert much stronger political leadership than before and as such it will be well placed to set the national direction on employability in the coming years.
As those joint arrangements recognise, collaboration with the UK Government and its providers remains essential if we are to be effective in helping people into work. For example, the introduction of the work programme has been one of the biggest changes to the employment system in recent years and we will continue to monitor closely how that is being implemented in Scotland.
We also recognise that greater flexibility has been afforded to DWP districts recently and we see that as an opportunity for more effective integration of services at a local level. Of course, we are ultimately trying to help people—people who, even at the best of times, may struggle to find and sustain employment. For that reason, a large part of “Working for Growth” focuses on our desire to help as many people as possible to enjoy the benefits of work.
There is only time to highlight some of the things that we are doing, or will be doing, in conjunction with a range of partners. To begin with, as the Minister for Youth Employment, I naturally recognise the disproportionate impact that the downturn has had on our young people. Action for jobs, our youth employment strategy, sets out the range of short, medium and long-term actions that we are taking and will take to ensure a better future for all Scotland’s young people.
We recently announced £15 million for a new employer recruitment incentive for young people and we will use that to leverage in additional funding—members will also recall Alex Neil’s announcement to Parliament on the additional £25 million of European social fund money. That comes on top of the £30 million that we had set aside previously to tackle youth unemployment in the period up to 2015.
I welcome the statement that the minister gave about the creation of 10,000 jobs. I am looking for a little bit more detail about what that will involve. I appreciate that it will not come on stream until next April, but can the minister tell us today whether it will be a job subsidy scheme or will it take a different tack?
In effect, what we have in mind is a wage subsidy scheme that will be targeted at the smallest employers. We will look to subsidise employment for, say, six months. However, that level of detail is not battened down yet. It is important that I continue my discussions with our partners in local government—because it is important that the scheme is delivered at a local level—and the Federation of Small Businesses, which I met this morning.
That support will obviously help the employee and employer at the time, but will the employee then have an opportunity to move into, say, a modern apprenticeship, or will they be barred from doing that because they have had the support of a wage subsidy?
There are many potential models. I am certainly familiar with pre-employment training that then links into a wage subsidy programme, whether the subsidy relates to employment or to a modern apprenticeship. One thing that we will have to discuss with our local partners is how to ensure that there is no duplication of resources or services but that there are opportunities to have a pipeline and a progression whereby we maximise opportunities for young people, first and foremost to get them into work or to secure them on a journey towards work.
We will also take forward actions to improve female employment, following the success of the recent women’s employment summit and our helpful debate on the subject earlier this week.
Disability continues to present a challenge, even though it is well documented that minor adjustments in the workplace can, for many people, make all the difference in the world. Figures suggest that the access to work facility is underused in Scotland, and I am keen that we work with the DWP to address that.
A recent freedom of information request that I made to Skills Development Scotland showed that just 0.02 per cent of modern apprenticeships are going to people with disabilities, and the figure is on a downward trend. I appreciate that it is a difficult task, but has the minister put some thought into how she might increase the opportunities for people with disabilities to access modern apprenticeship programmes?
Absolutely. There is a range of equality issues that we need to take on board in discussion with our partners and stakeholders. This is work that I have already begun with stakeholders in terms of disability and race. It is not an easy nut to crack in the sense that, with some employers, we are trying to change cultures and attitudes within the workplace, but there is definitely more that we can do. Much will hinge on our raising employers’ awareness of the programmes that the Government offers and making them aware that it is in their interest to have a diverse workforce. There is a positive business case for supporting diversity, whether in relation to young people, women or people with disabilities.
Mainstream employment is, of course, the ideal, and we will continue to promote the merits of the supported employment approach. However, we recognise that it may not be appropriate for all disabled people, so we recently commissioned a review of Scotland’s supported businesses, to be completed by next spring. The review will focus particularly on how the sustainability of such businesses can be improved in a difficult economic climate.
Finally, I highlight the continued importance of skills in helping people from all backgrounds to access and sustain employment. Evidence suggests that the possession of skills and qualifications is increasingly important in achieving employment of any kind. For that reason, we are not just maintaining but increasing our investment in skills during the current session of Parliament.
Those are just some of the ways in which we aim, with the help of our delivery partners, to improve people’s chances of gaining and sustaining employment.
Speaking of delivery partners, I confirm that local partnerships remain central to our goal of improving performance. That is why we launched “Working for Growth” in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. For example, we are well aware of the potential positive impact of community benefit causes. Increasingly, they are being used to good effect in public sector contracts to secure training and employment outcomes for local residents. In “Working for Growth”, we encourage local partnerships to share and learn from the examples of good practice that are available.
For our part, the Scottish Government will introduce a procurement reform bill, as announced in the legislative programme. Among other things, the bill will set an expectation that community benefit clauses be considered for all major contracts in the Scottish public sector. That is a major step forward.
“Working for Growth” sets out key ways in which we will target our national resources better and includes details of a new approach to employability funding that is better tailored to the needs of people and local labour markets. The new employability fund will from next year bring together our existing employability investments through Skills Development Scotland and the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council in a new partnership-led commissioning process. In developing the fund, we will learn from this year’s pilot scheme, through which SDS has commissioned job-focused learning from colleges.
There is much work to do, but we are well placed to achieve our goals. Alongside our youth employment strategy, “Working for Growth” is a vehicle through which we can maintain our focus on jobs and growth for Scotland in the coming months and years. I commend the framework to members and look forward to a constructive debate on how we can help more of Scotland’s people into work.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that supporting those who are unemployed into work is key to economic recovery and reducing poverty in Scotland; welcomes the publication of Working for Growth: A Refresh of the Employability Framework for Scotland, which recognises the importance of linking employability support with actions to support economic growth in Scotland and the value of further developing a more integrated employment and skills offer to both the unemployed and employers; also welcomes the agreement for shared political governance of the Scottish Employability Forum at UK, Scottish and local authority level and the development of an employability fund, which will move away from a limited range of training programmes and enable regional employability partners to work together to identify and respond effectively to gaps in existing pre-employment support; agrees that measures to support young people into work should remain a priority for the Scottish Government, and further welcomes the announcement of an additional £15 million in funding to develop further employment and skills interventions for young people in the draft budget statement of 20 September 2012 in addition to the £30 million already allocated for 2011 to 2014.
15:00
I thank the minister for bringing forward the debate. As is often the case, I cannot say that I disagree with much that is in the Government’s motion. Improving people’s employability is not just helpful to individuals but—potentially at least—of wider benefit to business, industry and our productivity as a country. We will therefore support the motion, the Labour amendment and the request in the Conservative amendment.
Unfortunately, as is also often the case, our greatest concern is about what is missing from the motion. The real problem that faces our country and our workforce is not employability but employment—or rather, the lack of it. We should support measures to improve employability, but much of that effort will be wasted if we do not do more to help to create jobs.
A line in the motion talks about
“linking employability support with actions to support economic growth in Scotland”,
but where are those actions? We have just had one of the most half-hearted budgets that I can recall in my time in the Parliament. It contains little by way of economic stimulus and it began to fall apart within hours of Mr Swinney’s statement.
I will return to the central issue of unemployment and our wider economy later, but I will first discuss something else that is missing. A gap exists between what the motion says about employability and the actions that the Scottish Government has taken, which fail to match the rhetoric.
I hope that Mr Macintosh will set out in a properly costed fashion what the Labour Party would do that was different, as an alternative to the budget proposals that he has just criticised.
As the cabinet secretary knows, all amendments to the budget must be framed so that they are properly costed. I wish that the Government had taken the same approach in producing its budget, instead of having a budget that fell apart under examination by the Scottish Parliament information centre within a couple of hours of being placed in the library.
How does cutting £38 million from the further education budget improve employability? How does reducing the number of students at colleges by 80,000—that is 80,000 fewer people accessing a college education under the Scottish National Party Administration—help unemployed Scots back into the workforce?
As Mr Macintosh well knows, the Government is committed to maintaining and is maintaining college student numbers at the full-time equivalent of 116,000. That is the most robust figure that is available.
That is the full-time equivalent figure, but the minister did not respond to the point that, under the SNP, 80,000 fewer people are going to college now than went two years ago. That means that 80,000 people have been denied a place at college—80,000 people have been denied the help that they need, and businesses have been denied the trained employees whom they need. Worse than that, 1,000 staff have been laid off at colleges.
Members should not take my word for it. They should look at evidence that the Educational Institute of Scotland has provided and at the evidence to the Education and Culture Committee this week from Mary Goodman of the Federation of Small Businesses, who called for more—not less—flexible provision from Scotland’s colleges.
As always with the cuts agenda, the most vulnerable are hurt. Across Scotland, parents of children with special needs feel frustrated and anxious as the few development courses that are available are being restricted, closed or removed altogether. The young adults who are affected are among the furthest from the job market. They want to make an economic contribution and they are desperate to improve their employability and to find work. They want to be valued for what they are capable of and not to be excluded because of the extent of their disability.
College cuts are an immediate and pressing concern, but they have the potential to cause even greater damage to our society and economy in the longer term. In recent years, one of the most important policy developments—which I thought at one point was generally a cross-party development—has been the drive to reduce the gulf between vocational and academic educational options. People should have a genuine choice about how to make the most of their abilities and how to make themselves more employable, rather than simply being forced down the university route.
For that to mean anything, there should be a move to narrow the funding gap between the two sectors. Instead, we are witnessing the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning’s naked elitism. There is a brazen promotion of universities over further education, and colleges are being forced to merge, lay off staff and close their doors to tens of thousands of Scottish students. That is all euphemistically called positive reform in order to disguise the truth of what is happening.
Does Mr Macintosh accept—as I do—that college education is not just for working-class young people, but for everybody? I certainly resent the implication that college education is second best when we are striving for parity of esteem through a reform programme that meets young people’s needs in terms of outcomes.
I am not sure that the minister is aware of what is happening in education on her watch. The funding for colleges is being slashed, and there is no parity of esteem—the drive towards it has been lost.
Colleges certainly are for everyone, as they are about lifelong learning. However, under the current Scottish National Party Administration, they seem to have become solely the preserve of 16 to 19-year-olds, and we are reversing all that we have achieved in the past few years. That is not the way to create a knowledge economy, to promote skills and manufacturing or to improve employability.
I ask the minister why there is such a lack of partnership between the Scottish Government and the Department for Work and Pensions on the work programme. I accept her assurance in the motion that she is keen to promote employability partners. However, as I understand it, anyone who starts on the work programme is automatically ineligible for Scottish Government assistance or any other support such as skills or literacy training.
Will the member give way?
The cabinet secretary is keen to intervene—perhaps he can answer that.
I encourage Mr Macintosh to think carefully about the arguments for ensuring, at a time of enormous constraint in the public finances, that one Government does not duplicate the activities of another Government.
I invite Labour members to speak to United Kingdom Government ministers, whom they would find perfectly prepared to explain that we address our programmes to certain groups of the population for which we have responsibility while the UK Government takes forward its programmes for the population groups for which it has responsibility, thereby avoiding duplication. That is a sensible use of public money.
There is a difference between avoiding duplication and partnership. The key point in that regard is that, if a young person in Scotland who is getting ESF funding for skills and training has to go on a work programme, they automatically stop the training and lose the skills, and are forced on to the programme. That is not a partnership approach.
Will the member give way?
Before I take an intervention, I suggest to the minister that the Scottish Government has now entirely and effectively pulled out of employability for all the long-term unemployed. She has left the future of the long-term unemployed solely up to the UK Government.
I will take an intervention now.
The work programme is designed by the United Kingdom Government to tackle the issues of long-term unemployment for people who have been out of the labour market for more than nine months. I am sure that the Auditor General for Scotland would have questions for me about why we were putting in place a programme that duplicated one that was available from the United Kingdom Government under its competence. That is a sensible and efficient use of public money—that is why we can balance a budget. That lot have not got a clue how to do it.
Why is it that when the cabinet secretary intervenes yet again, it sounds not like a reason but like an excuse? Young people in Scotland want a joined-up approach from all Government agencies but they do not have that. What they have is the Scottish Government abdicating responsibility and saying, “We will not help young people in this situation”, although long-term youth unemployment is a serious problem that is facing our economy.
Scotland’s unemployment rate is higher than that for the rest of the UK and long-term youth unemployment is now four times greater than it was just a year ago. There can be nobody in this chamber who has not heard about the long-term scarring effect of a prolonged period of unemployment on a young person’s life, yet the Scottish Government is pulling out of that programme entirely.
We agree that improving the employability of young unemployed adults can help and that there is a need to tackle some of the barriers to unemployment such as transport and the provision of childcare, yet there is a gap between what the Scottish Government says about childcare and what it is doing, which is very little.
rose.
I am sorry, but the member has no time for more interventions.
Surely, the most important priority for the Government is to boost the economy and reduce unemployment, but that is not happening.
We are yet to hear any detail about the national employment programme, although there is a lot of eagerness to find out what is in it. It matters a lot whether it is a flagship Government programme or whether it has been pulled together hurriedly at the last minute for the budget. It sounds more like the latter than the former. However, it is important that we have a flagship employment programme—a wage subsidy programme—to get young people back into work. Employability helps, but employment is the biggest answer of all.
I move amendment S4M-04365.3 in Kezia Dugdale’s name, to insert at end:
“; supports the need for ambitious employment and employability programmes at both local and national level; is concerned, however, that the Scottish Government’s rhetoric is not matched by the decision to cut £38.2 million from college budgets, nor the £86 million cut to the housing budget in 2011, which coincided with the loss of 12,000 construction jobs; notes that Scotland’s unemployment rate is now higher than that of the UK as a whole, with one in five young people out of work, and that long-term youth unemployment is almost four times greater than a year ago; is concerned that the Scottish Government’s modern apprenticeship programme is failing to produce the necessary skills base for the growth industries of the future, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that its final 2013-14 budget is amended to genuinely promote jobs, growth and fairness in order to ensure that actions on employability can translate into actual employment.”
15:11
This is an important debate. It is timely that the Scottish Government has put the matter before the Parliament, given the state of the economy not just now but as it is predicted to be for the rest of this year, the next year and possibly beyond.
There is a high level of unemployment in Scotland, the UK, most countries in Europe and the United States, but we have a particularly high level of youth unemployment both here and in the rest of the UK. The figures are pretty stark. The unemployment rate is about 24 per cent for those aged 16 to 24, 7.5 per cent for those aged 25 to 34, and 5.4 per cent for those aged 35 to 49. The stark contrast between the age groups is poignant when we look at the size of the youth unemployment cohort.
Any Government, whether in Scotland, the UK or elsewhere, has a difficult balancing act to achieve in the actions that it takes. All of us want quality and quantity at the same time, but within the finite funds that are available in the budget given to the minister, there is a decision to be made about how much should be invested in quantity—getting as many people as possible out of the dole queue and back into work—while trying to focus on the people whom we have heard about, who are furthest away from the labour market and who have been out of work for months or years. At times such as these, when there is such a high level of youth unemployment, those who are furthest away from the labour market have a real problem and are swept away by the tide of other people moving into unemployment.
I accept the Scottish Government’s good intention in appointing the Minister for Youth Employment. I acknowledge the budget and the figures that the minister mentioned in her opening remarks. I also acknowledge that many areas that affect unemployment and youth unemployment in particular are not under the control of the Scottish Government or, indeed, even the UK Government—we are affected by what goes on in Europe and the rest of the world. However, for the purpose of the debate it is worth focusing on where we have powers and the various schemes that have been put forward by the Scottish Government. I will go into a bit of detail on some of those initiatives and pose some questions, not putting criticism out there for the sake of it but looking at how things might be applied in 2013-14 and 2014-15 as opposed to what has happened in this year.
The first part of our amendment calls on the Government to think carefully about the initiatives that it puts forward and the criteria for deciding which initiatives to run with. There will be dozens of potentially good ideas, and if the Government had a budget of £1 billion to focus on the problem it might run with all of them.
If we total everything that Angela Constance mentioned, we are looking at a budget of about £70 million, including the European money. That is not a lot of money with which to try to fix an enormous problem, which is why we must weigh up carefully what it is spent on.
When Angela Constance appeared before the Finance Committee, I asked her about the decision to give £9 million—which was, I think, about half of the year 1 budget—to six councils. That decision may turn out to have been a good one. Once the money is applied and the results come in, we may look at it with hindsight and decide that it was a great decision and that we should have done more of the same or that we should do more of it in following years.
The difficulty that I have is that the decision was taken to give the money to the councils before any agreement was reached on what would be done. Simply giving money, whether to councils or any other part of society, without working out what we are trying to achieve with that money is not wise policy or practice. I would like to know what else was considered.
For the record, as I am sure I would have reported to the committee, I was participating in conversations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We already have a good grasp of the type and nature of programmes that work. We also have an imperative to get money quickly to the areas that are most acutely affected. I accept that there are always lessons to be learned but, given Mr Swinney’s stewardship of public finances, the allocation was not made in a vacuum.
I will merely quote from the Official Report. It is an important point. When Angela Constance was at the committee with her colleague Hugh McAloon, the response that was given was:
“It was made clear at the time that we would work with them after the announcement on what they are going to do with the money.”—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 13 June 2012; c 1328.]
To be fair, the record speaks for itself on that.
I will not dwell on that one decision. The point that I am making is that, when we take decisions on how money will be allocated, because of the scarcity of the available money we must be robust about what it will achieve and not make an announcement just for the sake of it.
The second part of our amendment focuses on the evaluation of interventions that are made. Will the evaluation be robust, independent and carefully applied? We have heard various announcements, such as the £15 million that will be made available from April for small and medium-sized enterprises to take on staff. That is of course a welcome announcement, but it is critical that that project be put in place properly, so that there is no duplication with the other existing schemes.
I certainly support evaluation, but does Gavin Brown agree that there is a challenge with it? Earlier, he mentioned that those who are further away from the job market need help. The danger with evaluation is that we will emphasise too much those who get a higher national diploma, degree or other qualification. What about the people who are further away?
I can give you about another minute, Mr Brown.
I am grateful for that, Presiding Officer.
Nobody suggests that evaluation is easy, but my critique thus far of the various schemes that have been proposed is that the evaluations that we have seen have been incomplete. In some cases, there has been no evaluation at all. In many cases, the evaluations are carried out by those who fund the initial project and, of course, all basically say that the project was a great idea. Mr Mason sits on the Finance Committee as well, and he will know that the committee has found it hugely frustrating trying to work out what evaluations have taken place or will take place at the end of the various projects.
We must avoid duplication. With the SME scheme in particular, we must ensure that the money for the 10,000 jobs is not simply given for six months to businesses that were going to take on somebody anyway. That is not an easy problem to fix. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth is shaking his head. We agree that it is not easy but, if the money goes to businesses that were going to take on somebody anyway, the end result will be no difference. That is a really important challenge. I do not think for a second that it is easy to get right, but it is critical that we do so.
I move amendment S4M-04365.2, to insert at end:
“, and calls on the Scottish Government to explain in greater detail the reasoning for allocating employability funding in the manner that it has as well as the alternatives that were considered and to outline clearly what evaluation mechanisms are in place to assess the effectiveness of respective interventions.”
We now turn to the open debate. Speeches should be up to six minutes. I can give a little bit of time for interventions at this stage of the debate.
15:19
The Labour Party’s position this week has been quite intriguing. Yesterday, it was tax, tax, tax; today, it is spend, spend, spend. Yesterday, Labour talked about taxing learning, health, the elderly and the disabled; today, it is talking about spending commitments after spending commitments.
Let us consider Labour’s amendment. It can only be assumed that Labour wants to commit further spending of £124 million for next year’s budget. I will take that as read unless there is an intervention.
Yesterday we heard a series of invented figures, and today started with further fantasy. Where does Bruce Crawford get the figure of £124 million from?
If Ken Macintosh adds up the two figures in Labour’s amendment, he will find that figure very easily. It is very easily found: it is a bit like the gap in Labour’s budget. The gap in Labour’s knowledge of its amendments is pretty obvious. [Interruption.]
Order.
Ken Macintosh talked about gaps. The single biggest gap in Labour’s rhetoric is the fact that we never get a single concrete suggestion about where the money to finance its commitments will come from. The commitments in its amendment come on top of a plethora of other commitments, of course. I have a list of them with me, and if any Labour member wants to intervene I will say what they all are.
Let us deal with the facts about colleges. We have heard a lot of nonsense from Ken Macintosh. Between 2007 and 2014-15, we will have invested £5 billion in colleges. That is 45 per cent more in cash terms than was invested under the two previous Liberal-Labour coalitions in the Parliament. Since 2006-07, the Scottish National Party has increased baseline college student support by 25 per cent, from £67.3 million to £84.2 million.
If there is so much money in our colleges, why is Mr Crawford suggesting that the £38.2 million cut that I have identified is correct? Is there a £38.2 million cut or is there not?
Whatever is done and however the matter is dressed up, there is one irrefutable fact as far as college places are concerned. The bottom line is how we get value for money, and it is a fact that there will be 116,000 full-time-equivalent students, which is the same number as there is in this financial year.
Will the member take an intervention?
Let me make a wee bit of progress first.
At least Gavin Brown approached his position in a more measured tone. It is depressing that, as is usual from Labour, there is not a single innovative idea in its amendment about how to do things differently. The Parliament was brought about to be a hotbed for generating ideas, not a moanfest for negative people who lack positive ideas of their own. It would be a refreshing change to have innovative ideas emanating from Labour.
Last week or the week before at a Finance Committee meeting, we heard from a witness that—God forbid—the current downturn might last for around 20 years. Gavin Brown and perhaps other members who are in the chamber were at that meeting. If Kezia Dugdale, who lodged the Labour amendment, remains elected to the Parliament and we are still in the economic downturn over the predicted period, I hope that her party will contribute much more positively to debates. Otherwise, Labour’s tone will mean that it is consigned to opposition for another 20 years.
Does the member recognise that we are representing the views of constituents who are currently finding it hard to get into college or find jobs in the construction sector? That is what we are here to do. Is the member seriously telling us that no one in his constituency is awaiting a college place?
The college sector in my constituency has led the way in reorganisation in the past and is robust and strong. Just a couple of weeks ago, I attended the opening of a fantastic new £29 million college in my constituency of Stirling. The Scottish Government is making that investment in the Stirling area.
If I have got things right, Kezia Dugdale will be over 50 by the time her party becomes electable again in 20 years. I know that I will not be around in the Parliament to see that, but that will be the situation if Labour continues the way that it is going.
Joking aside, I want to get on to a more positive agenda and speak about what we can do about employability.
I very much welcome the debate and the additional £15 million of funding to which the minister’s motion refers. I welcomed the announcement last week about the Government’s third sector and social enterprise challenge fund to be spread across 24 organisations nationally. That means that more than 2,000 young people will be given a chance to improve their employability.
That fund forms part of the Scottish Government’s guarantee, unique in these islands, that all 16 to 19-year-olds will be offered a place in training or education. I am pleased that the Government has funded that range of projects, all of which have the aim of helping Scotland’s young people into jobs.
I was particularly pleased with the award of over £58,000 to Recyke-a-bike in my constituency. I congratulate Recyke-a-bike, which is an innovative social enterprise that does excellent work in reducing the number of bikes going to landfill while at the same time creating employment and training opportunities in the Stirling area. It is a success story that shows how innovative and out-of-the-box thinking can be used to create and maintain employment, and it is something that Labour can perhaps begin to learn from. I hope that Stirling’s Recyke-a-bike will inspire others to establish innovative schemes in order to provide training and employment opportunities. Other innovative approaches can also make a significant and positive impact on employability.
Let me move on to the issue of apprenticeships, which is referred to in the motion. Frankly, Labour is all over the place on apprenticeships. In her cuts commission speech last week, Johann Lamont said that apprenticeships should be cut. She said that
“apprenticeships should be as highly regarded as university education ... if this means fewer, but better quality apprenticeships, we need to be honest about this.”
That would be okay if it stood on its own, but Labour is all over the place in that regard. For example, despite the fact that the 2011 budget included provision for an additional 1,500 apprenticeships, which Labour had asked for, Labour voted against the budget. Now, during the deepest recession in years, when the SNP Government is delivering a record 26,427 modern apprenticeships, Labour is calling for cuts to the programme—it is simply incredible.
I commend the motion to members.
15:26
The timing of this debate is fortunate as the Finance Committee had local workshops just last week as part of our employability inquiry. One of the workshops took place in Dumfries, and I was therefore able to listen to the views of the public, private and third sectors in Dumfries and Galloway and, very importantly, the views of local people regarding their own experiences of the obstacles in getting into employment.
One participant, who I think was from the private sector, referred to what they called the employability industry. There is a suspicion that there may be too many people creating work for themselves and sitting on committees talking about employability rather than creating work for people who are unemployed. If we have a look at the Scottish Government’s publication “Working for Growth: a Refresh of the Employability Framework for Scotland”, we will find mention of BASES—better alignment of Scotland’s employability services—skills investment plans, the strategic forum, the economy board, the Scottish employability forum, the national delivery group, the third sector employability forum, local employability partnerships and so on. It makes the reader wonder how all those organisations interact with one another and whether they avoid duplication.
Last Friday in Dumfries we heard about the Dumfries and Galloway local employability partnership’s action plan.
The member talks about duplication. I would like her to explain which of those groups and their help to get folk into employment she would abolish. We also heard a proposal for duplication earlier from Mr Macintosh around the work programme. Does the member agree with his view?
I will ignore that intervention, because I have an argument to make and the member has made a spurious point.
The local experience that we heard about was that public sector partners had set themselves targets and launched an employer offer, tailoring services in recruitment, training and staff retention to organisations’ needs. I was impressed when I heard that, but in the next session, which we held with the private sector, we heard that unfortunately the private sector did not seem to have been involved in the discussions. In fact, the businesses felt quite threatened by the employer offer initiative, which they felt was treading somewhat on their toes. I felt that the public sector organisations may be working better together, but our impression is that they are sometimes not working quite so well with the private and third sectors, which they need to be able to do.
An issue that was raised in all four sessions was the number of training schemes and funding streams, which causes confusion. People said that it can be difficult to keep track of all the announcements of pockets of funding, and that sometimes it is unclear whether what has been announced is new or a refresh of previously announced funding. I commend the intention in “Working for Growth” to develop a single employability fund, which I understand is intended to make more effective use of public sector resources. I give credit where it is due.
People who are unemployed, particularly those who are experiencing long-term employment or who are young and have never experienced employment, might require employability support to develop the skills that employers expect. However, the focus should not be only on the supply side. Friday’s session in Dumfries with people who are experiencing unemployment highlighted the barriers that are faced by people who seek to work in rural areas. A constituent of mine from Kelloholm said that he had succeeded in being offered a job in Annan, some 45 miles away. He could get there in 50 minutes by train, but it would cost him £12.30 per day, which meant that, given the loss of benefits, he would have been working for £8 a week. It is understandable that he did not take the job.
Another participant, who works in a hotel in Dumfries but lives in Dalbeattie, explained that when she works shifts she has to hang around until 11 o’clock at night to get her bus home, whatever time her shift ends. Other participants reported difficulties in accessing and travelling to work. Childcare is also a barrier, particularly if a job requires shift or weekend working. It appears that some employers are still asking women about their childcare arrangements, which I thought was illegal.
On the Labour amendment, of course we will support initiatives to improve employability. We recognise the importance to the local economy of getting people into employment, but we need to look at the issue in the round. I am particularly concerned about housing. During yesterday’s debate, I tried to intervene on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, but he took an intervention from Gavin Brown instead. We talk a lot about completions, and the statistics on completions of social rented homes look reasonably good. However, I have had a look at housing starts in the social rented sector, which fell from 6,997 in 2009-10 to 6,099 in 2010-11 and then to 2,948 in 2011-12. It worries me that houses are not coming through the pipeline. At the same time, there is a real-terms decrease of about 47 per cent in the housing supply budget, which I do not think is a coincidence.
The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has submitted evidence that it does not think that it will be able to meet targets. SNP members say that we are always asking for more money but, if the Government cannot give SFHA more money, will it discuss with SFHA the possibility of increasing the subsidy? There is not much point in having a pocket of money if housing associations can no longer access it because they cannot get the rest of the financing package as a result of banks putting up interest rates and concerns about welfare reform.
I ask ministers to discuss the issue, because housing is so important. The issue is not just the construction industry’s importance to the economy but the fact that it is the people who live in poor housing and deprived areas who find it most difficult to secure employment. If we help to solve the housing crisis, we will help to solve employability issues, too—that is an example of preventative spend. I ask ministers to consider how such issues might be tackled.
15:33
Youth unemployment in Scotland is running at 24.3 per cent, which is clearly far too high a level. It is little comfort that we are doing better than some of our European neighbours, such as Spain, where under-24 unemployment is running at a painful 53.27 per cent.
The recession that is the primary cause of unacceptable employment levels represents a threat and an opportunity. There is an opportunity, because the recession forces us to align our training so that what we do produces the outcomes that are anticipated—the key outcome being a productive job.
The Government says in “Working for Growth” that the employability partnerships that were created in 2006 have advanced hugely and are a key element in efforts to develop employability. The approach has been strengthened through the use of single outcome agreements, sustainable procurement and community benefit clauses.
More use could be made of community benefit clauses in public sector contracts to secure local training and employment. Since 2008, when the Scottish Government introduced those clauses, great progress has been made but, from my experience as a councillor, I do not think that some local councils are sufficiently confident about the details to make full use of the opportunity.
The UK’s Government’s austerity budget is working against Scotland. With full fiscal powers we could increase capital investment, which would boost job availability, and the Scottish Government has repeatedly called on the UK Government to increase capital investment to grow the economy. That view is supported by a growing list of eminent economists, who are also calling for capital investment. I cannot understand why the UK Government lacks basic economic competence in that respect.
There has never been a recession in which a country has budget-cut its way back to prosperity. That approach failed in the early 1930s and it is failing again. We need to introduce capital projects and help our economy back on to a firm footing.
The First Minister said that there has never been a recovery without a recovery in the construction sector, so what does Colin Beattie think about the housing programme cuts?
The cuts that we are suffering in Scotland are instigated by the Westminster Government. As I clearly said, no country that has had its budget cut has been able to grow its way back into prosperity. We need capital projects that put us back on a proper footing and enable us to expand our economy. We need to grow our way back into prosperity.
The finance secretary’s draft budget has made provision for £180 million of investment in construction, skills and the green economy, with an additional £18 million for skills training support for 10,000 opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises and £17 million for college education.
There has clearly been some success in the Scottish Government’s strategy: in 2010/11, a record 87.2 per cent of pupils leaving school achieved positive destinations, compared with 85.2 per cent the previous year. Modern apprenticeships are also at a record high, with 26,427 delivered at a cost of £72 million, against a target of 25,000 for each year of this parliamentary session. The Scottish Government’s opportunities for all initiative guarantees training or education opportunities for all young people between the ages of 16 and 19, should they need one.
A key way to achieve the necessary outcomes is the involvement of business, both local and national, in designing and implementing training and educational courses. With that approach, we can be confident that our young people will receive appropriate training and education that is meaningful to getting a job. There are encouraging signs that the partnership between businesses and those delivering training and education is increasingly productive and successful although, as always, more needs to be done.
Scotland’s economy benefits from improving productivity growth through innovation. There is a strong culture of collaboration and knowledge exchange between universities, colleges, and businesses. I am excited at the prospect of innovation centres being extended across Scotland. I recently had the pleasure of attending the launch of such a centre at Queen Margaret University, where the university has worked in partnership with East Lothian business gateway to set up the centre. I look forward to watching the centre’s progress in the months to come.
It is clear that there is no one road to successfully achieving employability. Much depends on the individual and their personal goals and abilities, and on the market. However, it not just young people who need support to improve their employability; there is a major job to be done in helping women into work. Childcare plays a major part in that and the Scottish Government is committed to transforming childcare. The children and young people bill will increase the amount of free nursery education from 475 to 600 hours for three and four-year-olds and looked-after two-year-olds. That is the best free nursery package in the UK, but it should by no means be the final aspiration. We must seek nursery provision of a Scandinavian quality; unfortunately, we are unlikely to reach that level without having control over our own affairs or the management our own economy.
Female employment figures are encouraging: between May and July the number of employed women increased by 12,000; that coincides with a 7,000 fall in female unemployment.
There are many strands to employability: there is provision for training and education, which the Government can achieve; there are delivery mechanisms, which universities, colleges, schools and a variety of training facilities can achieve; there are partnership and co-operation initiatives, which business can achieve; there is flexibility and a willingness to succeed, which the prospective employee can achieve; and, most important, there are shovel-ready projects totalling £300 million, which the UK Government can and must agree to, so that we can make real progress on all fronts.
15:40
I welcome the opportunity to speak about employability, an issue that is close to my heart and one that I focused on in my first speech in the Scottish Parliament, which was five years ago, although it does not feel like it.
I want to talk first about the nature of employment in Scotland, the calibre of employers that we have and the role of the public sector as an exemplary employer. We have some excellent employers and some high-skill jobs. Conversely, we also have many low-paid, low-skill jobs. The challenge that we face is finding people who want to go into work and finding them suitable employment routes that allow them to stay in work and to develop themselves as individuals and as employees. That is a huge challenge for us.
Another big issue that we are struggling with is the lack of availability of high-quality part-time employment. The women’s employment summit that was held a few weeks ago, which we debated earlier this week, looked at such issues. I know from Alison Johnstone, a constituent of mine whom the minister invited along to that event, that there is real concern about the opportunities that are available for people such as her. Although she has a clearly defined career path, is well qualified and has been in a high-skill job, she does not have the opportunity to go into a part-time, well-paid, high-skill job and balance work with the other pressures that she has in her family life. It is not necessarily Government’s role to influence such things directly, but Government and the public sector have a wider role to play in saying that we need to see more such opportunities being created in the workplace. If that does not happen, we will miss out on a whole potential workforce.
A rather worrying aspect of that issue, particularly for women who are trying to go back into employment, is that a job share might be seen as some sort of alternative career path rather than as high-quality part-time employment that is a normal part of someone’s career path, given the other pressures that we all face, particularly people with young families.
Another issue that is extremely important at the moment is how we develop the skills of people who are in low-paid jobs and develop a culture among employers of promoting skills development among their staff. In my first speech in the Parliament, I said that 70 per cent of the people who are in work at the moment will still be in work in 20 years’ time. The figure now is broadly the same. The workplace has changed a great deal over the past 20 years. Given the present pace of change and the likelihood that the workplace will change just as much, if not more, over the next 20 years, the Government faces a huge conundrum. It is down to private sector, voluntary sector and public sector employers to start doing something about the people that they have in work to ensure that they have the skills that they require and can move through the pipeline, so that people who are outside the labour market get the opportunity to move into work and there continues to be movement through the pipeline.
A big part of that is ensuring that we develop the leadership and management skills in our existing workplaces. How we better utilise skills in the workplace is an issue that was discussed at this afternoon’s meeting of the cross-party group on skills. To do that more effectively, we need leadership and effective management. In addition, we need to recognise that we must develop our leaders and managers to make that happen. That is a big challenge. That brings me back to the points that Ken Macintosh and Kezia Dugdale made in their interventions. Colleges and other learning providers are key in developing such vocational training opportunities, and we cannot lose sight of them in the current climate.
There is an issue about how joined up on skills the DWP and the Scottish Government agencies are. I have a constituent who was unfortunately made redundant because his employer went into liquidation. He got support from partnership action for continuing employment but, although that support was excellent in the first instance, it was reactive, not proactive. When he was trying to find an appropriate course, support was there for him from SDS, but he was unable to source a course locally and found himself in the work programme. There is a real challenge there. This is someone who worked in the same place for 25 years and never had to look for employment or think about the skills that he needed to develop his employment opportunities. Just when he needed a little bit of intervention at the right time, the system let him down. As parliamentarians we must bring examples such as that to the chamber in the hope that we can improve the system for people who are engaged in it. If we do not do that, much further down the road others will find themselves in the same situation as my constituent from Cowdenbeath.
I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment on procurement. I hope that there is compulsion on employers to train apprentices, through community benefit clauses and other measures. As part of that, we need to look at the issue raised earlier by Kezia Dugdale about disabled workers and workers who are underrepresented in the workplace. If we can find measures through procurement to ensure that those groups get opportunities and if we use Government spend to provide opportunities for them, we will be doing our job properly. If we do not do that, we will not maximise the potential of our workforce. If we do not do that properly, Scotland will be a far poorer place. As parliamentarians, we are in the best position to make that happen now.
15:46
Aberdeenshire West is a diverse constituency. We have farming, tourism, hospitality and of course the energy sector. Unemployment in Aberdeenshire is down as low as 1.3 per cent; in parts of my constituency, it is 0.6 per cent. That may not reflect what is happening elsewhere in Scotland.
I would like to look at the link between education and employment. In my constituency, an excellent model is being taught in schools. Called your future in energy, it gives young people the opportunity to take a broad view of entering the employment market. It moves away from the stereotype. In the project, young girls can think about wearing a hard hat and overalls and going into the offshore market. We have got young people looking at the various sciences and what they can do within their school curriculum for a future in the broad area of energy. We have to move that culture forward to ensure that our young people have the appropriate opportunities.
I am delighted to say that positive initiatives have been taken. Universities and colleges in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire have set up a centre for excellence to look at the broad energy market. They are looking at the feed-in from schools and what the skills sector requires, and applying the courses that young people need to get into employment. Employers in the energy sector say that there is a skills shortage, and indeed there is. However, that problem is being addressed because it is so important to our overall economy in Scotland and the UK and globally. It is unfortunate that much of the return from that energy sector does not come direct to Scotland. It goes to the coffers down at Westminster and our return is very small indeed.
We are providing opportunities for our young people. The Government has taken a positive step by appointing the Minister for Youth Employment to look at the link between education and youth employment.
The minister mentioned access to work. One of the UK’s best-kept secrets is access to work. Who is it available for? What are the criteria? It keeps changing. I do not know whether access to work is available for young disabled people for apprenticeships or when they are trying to learn new skills, but I do not think that it is. Yet that is when support is most needed, during early training when people are learning new skills. It is there to help our young people achieve work. As has been mentioned, it is a challenge for our young disabled, and for all disabled people, in the employment market, so we must try to ensure that every opportunity is made available for them.
I am delighted that the cabinet secretary within his budget has managed to secure funding for social enterprises. That funding is there to enable and to give positive messages to the people of Scotland, not the negative rhetoric that we have heard from those on the Labour benches this afternoon. Bruce Crawford said that he may not be here in 20 years’ time. I say to Bruce Crawford that he will be 76 and will probably be most welcome here because he would have a more positive message than we have heard today from Labour members.
Let me end by saying that the models within Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, led by Aberdeen city and shire economic future, are models that could be replicated throughout Scotland. I commend the motion to the Parliament.
15:51
I, too, welcome this afternoon’s debate and the publication of “Working for Growth”. We will have no difficulty in supporting the Government’s motion at decision time.
The motion highlights a number of funding commitments, but there appears to be at least some confusion surrounding the way in which the funding is being committed. That frustration is felt to a greater or lesser extent by colleagues on the Education and Culture Committee—a point that I will return to later if I have time—so Gavin Brown’s call for greater clarity on the allocation of funding is perhaps sensible. Likewise, while Kezia Dugdale’s amendment is perhaps more strident in tone and certainly unduly critical of the modern apprenticeships scheme, she highlights a number of areas where the Government is not yet adequately walking the talk. For that reason, the Scottish Liberal Democrats will also support the Labour amendment this evening.
In general terms, this is an area of policy where genuine cross-party agreement exists. No one seriously disputes the challenge that we face, particularly though not exclusively in improving the skills and employability of our young people, not least given the stark statistics that Gavin Brown quoted. There is even little dispute among the parties over what the policy response to these challenges should be, which is perhaps reflected in the fact that none of the Opposition parties sought to amend the text of the minister’s motion—they seek merely to add to it.
In that vein, as I am sure that we will return to this and related issues many times in the months ahead, let me make a plea to the minister. Although she rightly highlighted the constructive partnerships that have emerged in all 32 council areas, she still seemed a little coy in acknowledging the role that the £1 billion youth contract initiative announced by the UK Government last year can play in enhancing the employability of young people in Scotland. As she knows, under that programme UK ministers committed to fund incentives to companies that take on young people and to provide extra support through Jobcentre Plus for unemployed 18 to 24-year-olds, so that there is an offer of work experience or a sector-based work academy place for every 18 to 24-year-old who wants one. I acknowledge that that may be reflected in the wage subsidies to which Ms Constance referred, but I hope that she will agree that, in future debates and motions, the importance of those contract initiatives could be exemplified.
On the modern apprenticeships scheme, as I said, I think that Kezia Dugdale may be overly harsh in her criticism, but I accept that there are concerns around some of the detail of what the Government is doing. The promise to create 25,000 modern apprenticeships each year is undoubtedly ambitious, but the minister has been worryingly vague so far on how that is to be achieved. What proportion of the overall number of apprenticeships will be taken up in the public or, indeed, the third sector? What demand is there in different parts of the private sector and among businesses of different sizes? The impression is that ministers have arrived at an eye-catching target but are less sure of how that target is to be met and where the demand is to come from. The risk is that the target will become the primary focus.
Does Liam McArthur accept that the Government not only achieved the 25,000 target but went over that and got to 26,000-plus?
I accept what Bruce Crawford is saying, but the point is whether the 25,000 target gives the correct make-up for growing the economy. Are we achieving the target for the sake of achieving the target, or are we putting the interventions where they are most needed? The target will not ensure that resources are invested in the most appropriate place or that ministers’ policy intentions are actually delivered. Indeed, the Education and Culture Committee heard hints to that effect in evidence earlier this week.
Will the member take an intervention?
I need to make a little progress. How much time do I have, Presiding Officer?
I can give you some time back for taking an intervention.
Does Mr McArthur acknowledge that the great strength of the modern apprenticeships programme in Scotland is its employed status? It is the part of the skills system that I believe responds best to employers’ needs, because employers inform the framework. He is looking at this from the wrong angle.
I do not accept that at all. Angela Constance will recall the exchanges that we had in the Education and Culture Committee when she was not able to set out in any detail the make-up of the apprenticeships between the public and private sector, which suggests that the target is being elevated above all else.
Changes in the funding arrangements for modern apprenticeships also appear to be creating some practical difficulties. Understandably, much of the attention has been on meeting the needs of 16 to 19-year-olds, although it is disturbing to note that long-term youth unemployment appears to be four times greater than it was a year ago. Many young people are into their 20s before they decide that they want to undertake an apprenticeship, yet changes to the funding rules that took place earlier this year appear to have reduced the level of support for 20 to 24-year-olds to half that available for 16 to 19-year-olds. It has been pointed out to me by a number of major employers in Scotland that encouraging more of those in the older age group to take up apprenticeships—and so progress—will free up opportunities for 16 to 19-year-olds. The minister may wish to consider whether further refinement of the scheme is needed.
In the time remaining to me, I will focus on the situation faced by Scotland’s college sector. In evidence this week, the Education and Culture Committee heard from a range of business organisations, all of whom acknowledged the critical role that our colleges play in providing the skills that our country and its economy need to emerge stronger from the current downturn. The consensus around the vital contribution made by Scotland’s colleges is matched only by the general confusion about funding in this area, as I indicated earlier. Professor Jim Gallagher referred to the problem as “biscuit-tin funding”, whereby bits and pieces of money were found to plug gaps or to respond to specific issues. He said that as well as making it difficult to see where and how funding was being directed, and for what purpose, that approach risks impeding delivery of broader objectives.
So far, the more the committee has delved into the issue of college and related funding, the more opaque the situation has become. What is clear is that the pressure on colleges is significant. As Scottish Colleges confirmed this week,
“the strong downward trend for teaching funds is a concern in terms of retaining student numbers, breadth of curriculum and quality of teaching.”
I acknowledge and welcome the funding that John Swinney announced last month, and the funding that, by all accounts, Michael Russell announced in front of colleges earlier this week. Nevertheless, as with last year, I believe that further work needs to be done.
Let us not forget that this is all happening at a time when colleges are going through enormous upheaval, with mergers and so on, while also being required to deliver a range of commitments.
The minister, along with her colleagues, needs to pay particular attention to the discrepancy between funding of higher education courses in our colleges and in our universities. As well as leaving our colleges short-changed, it sends a message to potential employers that is not helpful. It suggests that ministers attach less value to college courses and that they are somehow inferior. That perception risks undermining attempts to improve articulation from college to university and compromises our collective commitment to widening access.
Mr McArthur, you need to stop.
I hope that the minister will agree to look again at the issue. As ever, there are many issues that I have not been able to cover, but I welcome the fact that Parliament has had this opportunity to debate ways in which we can improve skills and employability. It remains a commitment shared across the chamber and one on which I believe that we can and must continue to make progress.
Thank you. I ask members who want to conduct conversations—they know who they are—to please leave the chamber to do so.
15:58
I hope that by outlining the concerns echoed by agencies, employers, the third sector and prospective employees in my constituency, and some of the ideas that they offered to tackle the issue of employability, some consensus can be reached on action to ensure that people on the margins increase their chances of getting a job, staying in that job and further progressing in employment.
I am sorry to interrupt you Mr Gibson, but could you please move your microphone so that we can hear you?
I apologise, Presiding Officer.
He is usually easy to hear.
I am sorry. I am being heckled by the deputy convener of the Finance Committee—not for the first time.
This year, the Finance Committee has held a series of oral evidence sessions on the necessity of enriching employability prospects for those on the margins of employment, which culminated in one-day workshops last Friday in three regions with high levels of unemployment, including Ardrossan in my constituency of Cunninghame North. The central objective of the workshops was to engage with representatives from the public, private and third sectors and individuals who have been through the system to gain a better understanding of the employability landscape. I believe that it is worth exploring the evidence.
One of the main challenges is the lack of cohesion between employers and public sector agencies in relation to getting the type of person that employers need, although there was a general feeling that engagement with employers is better now than it was in the past.
Chief among the concerns were arguably the complex employability landscape and the competition between bodies at UK, Scottish and local government level.
Funding is heavily target driven and thus an examination of funding models is essential to re-engage with prospective employers and employees on what is best for them. When people were asked whether public sector employers were doing enough to help vulnerable individuals enter the labour market, it was clear that more could be done. For example, many national health service staff work fewer than 15 hours a week and therefore do not qualify for tax credits—that is a direct impediment to work.
Private sector businesses express concern about the poor quality of some candidates, with the main barrier cited being a lack of basic capabilities: the three Rs and soft skills. Employment agencies should refocus on quality rather than quantity when it comes to referring applicants for jobs. In short, employers believe that there is too much emphasis on financial reward for companies who recruit additional staff rather than ensuring that the right person is put forward.
Co-operation between business and education is needed to ensure that the right attitudes to work are ingrained as early as possible. For example, they should be ingrained at primary school level rather than in the fourth year of secondary school, when opinions to the contrary may already be ingrained in some individuals.
In a more positive light, mentoring and work placements were praised as an effective means of developing the right attitude—partnerships between employers and local schools were a prominent example. Placements are largely seen as being effective in developing the necessary soft skills, such as workplace discipline and organisation.
However, it was noted that the DWP is not enthusiastic about endorsing longer-term placements as its emphasis is on getting individuals into paid employment as quickly as possible.
This Government understands the importance of engaging with private sector employers to raise awareness of employment options, for example engagement with the British Hospitality Association to improve young people’s understanding of the industry’s prospects and with the Scottish Retail Consortium to highlight the extent to which employees’ skills are constantly upgraded through on-the-job training.
It is interesting that evidence from the third sector echoed the sentiments expressed by the private sector in as much as third sector organisations agree that it is imperative to build the confidence and self-esteem of pupils at school. They fully endorse the requirement for employability and entrepreneurial programmes in the school system. There was further overlap in that voluntary organisations believe that employability programmes should concentrate on achieving quality and not targets.
It is clear that the third sector wants there to be a move away from short-term, reactive measures in favour of the long term. At the very beginning of the Finance Committee’s inquiry, that sentiment was echoed by the Scottish Trades Union Congress, which pointed out that labour market interventions are stronger in most European countries than they are in the UK and, indeed, Scotland, and that such interventions work even when employment is high.
Perhaps most important are the views of service users themselves. Although their experience of employability programmes was in many ways positive, the programmes were seen to focus too much on a specific age group, which often left older individuals feeling excluded. Training programmes are often viewed as mass produced and not suitable for individual needs. Many told of negative experiences when engaging with Jobcentre Plus and the DWP, citing a lack of flexibility and an unwelcoming and intimidating atmosphere.
The SNP Government takes employability matters very seriously and has done much within limited powers to help to improve the overall situation. For example, it has introduced ambitious pilot schemes to incentivise small businesses to take on graduates in permanent posts and, as we have heard, it has delivered fully on our commitment to offer 25,000 new apprenticeship opportunities in 2011-12, as that target has been exceeded.
Opportunities for all is an explicit commitment to a place in education or training for all 16 to 19-year-olds who are not already in education or employment.
We have also developed a regional approach for colleges to make the sector more efficient and receptive, in line with students’ needs. Those obligations are reflective of many practical strategies recommended by the International Labour Organization in its 2011 policy brief, primarily delaying the exit of young people from formal education and strengthening the link between education and training systems and the world of work.
Lessons can be learned from the experiences of other European countries. For example, the Netherlands introduced a scheme in 2009 whereby municipalities must offer those aged 18 to 27 who apply for social assistance either a job, some form of schooling or training, or a combination of both. The Investing in Young People Act has undoubtedly contributed to the Netherlands finding itself at the bottom of the pile in terms of levels of youth unemployment rates in Europe.
Denmark’s latest youth plan categorises employment strategies into age brackets. For example, all school pupils aged 15 to 17 years old have to prepare an education plan with their parents, their school and the youth guidance centre.
Mr Gibson, please begin to conclude your speech.
The plan leads to further education or identifies what the pupil will otherwise do, whether it is training or something else. Those examples are consistent with conjoining education and training and with discouraging an early exit from formal education.
We need to do more for older people and for women, but progress is being made. I hope that the issues that the Finance Committee is deliberating on will be recognised and looked at closely by Scottish ministers.
16:05
Across the UK, about 40 per cent of those who are unemployed are aged between 16 and 25 and, as we heard earlier this week, the jobs crisis and the worrying trends in our labour market are placing women at a particular disadvantage. Unemployment can affect different people in different ways, but no matter who they are or what they do, it is a waste of human potential and a social tragedy. If we achieve anything as a Parliament in this session, we must bring Scotland back to a position where full employment is once again within our reach.
It was reported in the press last week that more than 250,000 people have never had a job at all—a figure that has increased in 26 of Scotland’s 32 councils as the youth unemployment crisis develops. Long-term unemployment is corrosive. It is demoralising and demeaning to the individual, damaging to society and, as the Institute for Public Policy Research said earlier this year, a “hidden crisis”—the real cost of this country’s slowest ever economic recovery.
Those who have become newly unemployed since the crisis began in 2008 and those young people who are entering the toughest labour market in a generation must not be lost to long-term unemployment, which is running at a 16-year high.
It is wrong to say that there are no opportunities at all in the economy. Over the summer I worked with Jobcentre Plus to organise a jobs fayre in my region and we did our best to match up people who were looking for work with employers who were actively recruiting for new vacancies. However, in some parts of Scotland there are more than 20 people chasing every job. In what the media have termed “employment black spots” there can be as many as 35 people chasing every job.
The challenge for government at every level is to provide real opportunities now—not just opportunities to work, but opportunities to learn and to train, in order to help our people to upskill until the upturn comes. We have to strengthen and accelerate the recovery too, with plans and strategies in place to ensure that growth is sustainable and rich with jobs. The Scottish Government must promote, support and improve employability across the board as well as in key sectors such as construction and hospitality.
I welcome the commitment to retain college places, but scratch beneath the surface and the further education sector is struggling with budget cuts, job losses and growing waiting lists for college courses. Scotland’s Colleges says that 30 per cent of FE students come from the most deprived areas, rising to 70 per cent in the hardest hit parts of the country. Almost 23 per cent of the student population in Scottish universities are from the 40 per cent most deprived neighbourhoods. That figure is not good enough, but it is higher than the number of people from the lowest income deciles at schools who obtain five highers and it shows that for many young people, college is a route into university.
I underline the importance of colleges, but the employability infrastructure in Scotland is much wider. I worked with modern apprentices before being elected to this Parliament and it was a very rewarding career. I could see first hand how an apprenticeship could make a difference and I will always be a big supporter of the modern apprenticeships programme.
Angus Training Group Ltd, which is located in my constituency, recently announced a 50 per cent increase in modern apprenticeship trainees for this year, which means that 67 young people from Paisley to Peterhead are coming to Arbroath to train as engineers. Can the member explain how her party’s assertion in its motion that
“the Scottish Government’s modern apprenticeship programme is failing to produce the necessary skills base for the growth industries of the future”
squares with reality?
We need to look at the 25,000 modern apprenticeships that are being offered just now. Are they new this year or are modern apprentices who were recruited last year being carried forward and included in that figure? We need to look into that.
I am also of the view that there are gaps in the programme and the youth employment strategy. There are young people who are not ready for a modern apprenticeship but are closer to the labour market than the get ready for work group. In the past, those young people could be supported through the skillseekers programme, but these days I have to question whether enough is being done for them.
We must also look at the sectors in which we expect employers to provide modern apprenticeships. The majority of businesses in Scotland are small businesses with fewer than 10 employees, and they host many of our modern apprentices. The Government must do everything that it can to support those businesses as the economy comes through its second recession in four years.
In evidence to the Finance Committee, both the FSB and Minerva People Ltd, which is an independent training provider that is based in the south of Scotland, indicated that a single brokerage service would be helpful. I know that the minister addressed the point earlier, but I have another question to ask her. The FSB and Minerva People called for a one-stop shop where information about recruitment incentives, job placements and apprenticeships could be found. When will the single portal that the minister mentioned come on stream and how will it help SMEs to navigate the system with clarity and with confidence?
You must close now, please.
We must do all that we can to help young people to gain and retain employment. Today, I have set out some ideas on how we can improve our response. We must also keep the economy at the top of the agenda, because in these troubled times a stable economy, a strong recovery and full employment are things that we must fight for and invest in.
Members now have up to six minutes including interventions, as we are tight for time.
16:12
I welcome this afternoon’s debate on a crucial issue for the whole country. During yesterday’s debate on Scotland’s future, I stated that when I was growing up, Inverclyde’s economic heart was being systematically dismantled by the Tory UK Government. That was at a time when all powers rested with Westminster. I do not believe for one minute that we want to go back to those dark days, when communities were ripped apart, families were split apart and lives were wrecked. That was the legacy of an uncaring Westminster Government that had little regard for Scotland.
Debates on employability are usually charged affairs, and rightly so. The younger generation are the future of the country, so if they are not being given opportunities, what hope will there be? I am thankful that the Scottish Government recognises their importance and has invested finance, energy and time in the issue. It also knows that the measures of past UK Governments, including the abandonment of apprenticeships and the introduction of schemes such as the youth training scheme, have left a legacy for the country to deal with now.
Time and again, the issue of skills shortages is raised in the Parliament and the Government is asked what it is going to do about the situation—we have heard that in today’s debate. I honestly cannot believe that the Scottish Government is being expected, in the space of one or two parliamentary sessions, to right the wrongs of years of failed policies for our younger people.
Further to that, when unemployment statistics are raised in the chamber, we have to accept that it is impossible to get everyone into work, for a variety of reasons. Every one of us will admit that unemployment is a huge challenge; no Government of any colour has fully dealt with it in the past.
I know that from my experience. After I graduated from university in 1997, I was unemployed for six months; I was overqualified and underexperienced. I obtained a job in a factory for six weeks in the run-up to Christmas, which helped me financially, but it also helped me to regain some of my lost self-esteem. I had a student loan, which was a debt that was always on my mind at the time, so I started to put aside money to pay it off. I am thankful that tuition fees had not been introduced, otherwise I would have had an additional debt, and that the SNP Government and the Scottish Parliament had the courage and the guts to be on the side of graduates when we abolished the dreaded tuition fees, irrespective of whether they were at the front end or the back end.
I will highlight a couple of firms from Inverclyde and their experiences. Stepper Technology and its sister company MES Marine & Engineering Services have in the past year taken on 22 new employees, of whom 15 are under 24 years old. Many of those young people have come from welfare to work programmes, including get ready for work, which has helped 16 and 17-year-olds to achieve employment. The managing director—a guy called Tom Smith—told me that
“employers have a duty of care to take responsibility for the future of the young kids within their own community. They are the future, and we the business community have a social responsibility to ensure they are employed and well trained. Without these important elements, what future would the business community have, and Inverclyde too?”
That touches on the point that John Park made about employers’ social responsibility. I congratulate Tom Smith on his positive outlook about employing young people and on his absolute commitment to his social responsibility.
The second firm that I will highlight is a bus company that is based in Inverclyde—McGill’s Bus Service Ltd. I have been told that it continually has vacancies—it currently has 17. It looks for a range of skills and many roles are for trained engineers and bus mechanics.
The skills shortage, which has been touched on, may be due to past Government and college decisions to cut back on particular training programmes. It is nigh on impossible to train bus apprentices fully in Scotland. To be fully trained, a bus apprentice must go to one of the hubs of excellence in England. As a result, Scotland has been deskilled in that sector in the past 20 years.
Organisations in Glasgow—and, I am sure, throughout the country—will train bus drivers for the public service vehicle licence. If individuals get that qualification, they are guaranteed a full-time job.
Margaret McCulloch obviously did not listen to what I said—I talked about engineers and bus mechanics, not drivers.
I ask new colleges to examine what might be an opportunity to start reskilling some of our younger people. That will not happen overnight, but the deskilling started long before May 2007.
I welcome the debate and I back the motion in Angela Constance’s name. The £30 million and the additional £15 million in funding are welcome. We can all agree that more can be done. If John Swinney’s budget was not being hammered by Westminster cuts, he could put a bit more money into the pot.
I agree with the thoughts of my colleague Colin Beattie and of John Park about community benefit clauses. It is imperative that local authority officials engage fully on use of such clauses, because that will benefit our communities and all our constituents.
I welcome the 26,000 apprentices last year and the commitment for the rest of the parliamentary session. I welcome the “Working for Growth” framework and the partnership approach. I welcome the investment of £180 million in construction skills and the green economy. More still needs to be done, but that will not happen overnight and will not happen without the full financial accountability that Parliament needs.
I welcome the debate and the Scottish Government’s actions, but we cannot be complacent about our future.
16:18
I intend to give a speech that I have given several times before in the chamber. That should make my job easier, but given that nobody understood what I was on about the last couple of times, it is necessary for me to repeat what I said and to work hard to ensure that my message gets across.
Last week, the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee heard evidence from a number of cycling organisations. I remarked privately—not on the record—to some of my committee colleagues that, when it comes to efforts to promote cycling as a driver for economic growth, Norman Tebbit does not get nearly as much credit as he deserves. He said that, when his father was unemployed, his father did not sit around worrying about it;
“he got on his bike and looked for work.”
Members might wonder why I mention Norman Tebbit. I do so because I would rather do so myself than wait for somebody to intervene and do the same thing, because I will talk about labour mobility.
A number of members have talked about the employment situation in different parts of Scotland. Ken Macintosh gave the message that I have heard from many people in the Parliament—that there are no jobs. Margaret McCulloch said that, in her area, 20 people chase every job that comes along. However, we heard from Dennis Robertson, who lives in the same town as I do, that there is a labour shortage—if not a skills shortage—in his constituency.
The truth is that the Scottish economy is very diverse. There are areas of high unemployment—some of the highest anywhere in the UK—and there are areas where there are extremely low unemployment and a skills shortage. We are failing to ensure effectively that people who are without jobs can move, if they choose to, to areas where jobs exist.
Will the member take an intervention?
At this stage I will advance my argument. As I said, I have done so before and I want to do so again.
The evidence for the fact that there are jobs to be had if people are willing to move to get them comes from eastern European immigration. I qualify that—as I have done many times before—by saying that I am one of those Conservatives who are very supportive of eastern European immigration. In fact, I have talked to many employers in the north-east who say that, if it was not for eastern European workers, they would have no business at all. Those workers are very welcome, but their existence demonstrates that jobs are available if people are willing to move to get to them.
Would Alex Johnstone care to let us know what the average number of working people in a family was when Norman Tebbit’s father moved, which I suggest was closer to one, and the number of working adults that there are in a family today, which I suggest is substantially closer to two? Is he suggesting that someone with a job should voluntarily surrender it so that they can travel with their partner on the speculative chance of getting a new job?
I am not suggesting that at all. Unfortunately, I do not have the statistics. I do not remember that era, although Stewart Stevenson may do—
No, he does not.
I will progress my argument slightly. I do not wish to force anyone to move against their will, but I know that there are people who would be willing to move for work, if the possibility was there.
I suggest that the reason why eastern European workers are willing to move to areas of Scotland where there are labour shortages, and why people who are unemployed in certain areas of Scotland are less able to move, is related to housing as much as to anything else. It is a fact that many people from eastern Europe have come from difficult circumstances and are willing, in order to get a start in a new country, to put up with housing conditions that no one in Scotland would put up with. People in Scotland who live in areas of high unemployment but have adequate or appropriate housing are extremely unwilling to give that up in order to move to where there are jobs. We need to deal with that in order to foster labour mobility.
We heard from Elaine Murray about local difficulties involving transport; I acknowledge that transport is a key issue. However, housing is the issue on which I will concentrate. People who want to move 100 miles or more to an area such as the north-east where there are jobs to be had will—if they are moving to highly paid jobs and are able to participate in the private housing market—be able to find a place to stay, although they might pay through the nose for a house.
For people at the other end of the labour market, where they are likely to be less well paid, or for young people who do not have the appropriate skills but can find a job where they may gain those skills, the opportunity to find housing is virtually zero. In fact, the rules that govern the allocation of housing under the Homelessness Act 2002 mean that houses in the north-east are likely to be allocated to people who are on the local homeless register rather than to people who move there for a job.
The member should be closing now.
Intermediate housing, particularly in the mid-market rental sector, is still heavily oversubscribed.
The member must close, please.
I suggest to the minister that the Cabinet needs to take a more holistic view. If we are to get people without jobs into the jobs without workers we must foster mobility, and housing is a key element that we must deal with.
16:24
I welcome the funding that has been provided by the Scottish Government—both the £30 million that was announced previously and the additional £15 million. The fact that we have a dedicated Minister for Youth Employment also brings real focus to the subject.
As we look to the budget for 2013-14, we are getting a positive reaction for switching resources from revenue to capital spend. However, there is a limit to how much of that we can do without impacting on day-to-day revenue spending. It is not easy to get that balance right, and the Finance Committee will look at that in detail in the coming months. Although the level of borrowing has been too high in the past and is a major cause of our current problems, many academics are now arguing that some capital expenditure in the short term would boost jobs and growth. That is still in the hands of the UK Government, and either it needs to move in that direction itself or it needs to give this country the powers to do so.
As we have heard, the Finance Committee has been carrying out a study into employability and its report is due at the end of November, after which we will probably have another debate. On Friday, the committee held useful workshops in Ardrossan and Dundee, and I was privileged to attend one in Dumfries with Elaine Murray and others. That was hugely informative for me, as I am more used to the urban environment and the problems and challenges that we face there. It was useful to hear of the particular challenges that people face in more rural areas and to meet public, private and third sector representatives as well as some folk who are seeking employment.
Issues such as transport are often specific to rural areas, and we heard of the need for a training centre for the hospitality sector which is specific to Dumfries and Galloway. Other issues, however, are relevant for the whole of Scotland. For example, it is important that people train for the right jobs. We hear about the need for engineers in the North Sea oil sector and other parts of the energy sector. I am not sure that I agree with the thrust of Alex Johnstone’s argument that the issue is mobility, because there seems to be a national shortage of engineers and people with related skills. We now have some North Sea engineering companies coming to Glasgow, but they still find a skills shortage. We need to encourage young people to go in that direction. As a country, we seem to value engineers slightly less highly than they are valued elsewhere, so perhaps we need to change that attitude.
Hospitality and tourism are hugely important both in a city such as Glasgow and in a more rural area such as Dumfries and Galloway. There can be an assumption that there are few opportunities for career progression in the hospitality sector, but we have heard repeatedly that there are good opportunities and that people can get to the top of large businesses in that sector.
On schools, on Friday we were given an explanation of the difference between soft skills and core skills. I know that the minister prefers core skills. However, communication skills, for example, are really important whether in the retail sector or in restaurants.
Another point that came up on Friday—which has been mentioned and on which I agree with Elaine Murray—is that the private sector feels that it is not being properly included by the public sector. However, we were impressed by how well the public sector is working in itself.
The Finance Committee has considered the issue of young people who are far from the labour market. The comment by some employers that there is core of such young people who are virtually unemployable has been widely publicised. That was overstated in the media, but the reality is that some folk need extra support. We, as a society, owe them that. I strongly believe that every person in our society has something to offer. Society gains if everybody contributes, and every individual has the right to feel fulfilled. Of course, for some people employment is not the right route to personal fulfilment; for a youngster who has grown up in a household where nobody works, it will often take more than 26 weeks for them to be able to stand on their own two feet in the workplace.
We also have many disabled people who really want to work and contribute to society. Some can cope in a mainstream environment with a bit of support, but others need greater support. That is why it is disappointing that Remploy facilities are being closed. I think very highly of Royal Strathclyde Blindcraft Industries, in Glasgow, which has managed to change its product over the years. That organisation and others have a valuable part to play, and I welcome the minister’s statement that there is going to be a review of that.
I will conclude by touching on the two amendments. The figure of £124 million is, again, mentioned in the Labour amendment as what Labour is looking for. That leaves us with the question of where that money will come from. The health budget is the biggest budget in the country. Therefore, we can presume that the Labour Party would take the £124 million off that budget. Does that mean that it would charge people to visit their general practitioners and to stay in hospital, as well as having them pay for life-saving medicines?
On the Conservative amendment, of course we all support evaluation and audits, as Gavin Brown said. I am an accountant after all, and that is what I like doing, but we know that accountants are criticised for knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing. There would be certain dangers with putting all the resources into the approaches that are most easily measured. Do we value only college or university qualifications and not help those who are further from work and whom we need to bring closer? The result could be that some of our most vulnerable citizens would be left behind.
16:30
In the chamber this week, there has been a great level of debate regarding employment. This issue affects the lives of more than 500,000 people in Scotland at present and it is only right that it be afforded such time and attention.
On Tuesday, we had a debate about women’s employment, and it became clear that that should always be of concern to the Parliament. Women in the workplace still suffer discrimination at every level and it is our responsibility to eradicate that from society. However, as that aspect of employability has already been covered in some detail, I will talk about the problems that my region, Glasgow, faces and the strategies that are needed to help the city to cope with the economic downturn.
Glasgow faces challenges in every sector of the job market. It is imperative that we have strategies in place to allow the city to cope. We know that investing in our economy and injecting cash into it will create growth and jobs, but struggling areas that we have failed to support have taken well over a generation to recover.
Ms McTaggart was present for part of a visit that I took part in to the Clyde Gateway the other week. New companies, including Glacier Energy Services, have gone into the east end of Glasgow with support from the public and private sectors. Is that not to be welcomed and does it not show that investment by the Government is bringing new jobs and investment to the east end?
All jobs are more than welcome in Glasgow.
We are all aware that the times have changed since the 1980s, and so has the job market. We no longer have the major industries in Glasgow, and the problem of unemployment has grown more complex. We cannot allow the mistakes of the past to be repeated. Young people were thrown on the scrap heap and others never worked again and so fell into the trap of benefits. Therefore, it is vital that we all continue to do what we can to prevent history from repeating itself.
Let us take a couple of modern examples. Citizens Advice Scotland noted some time ago that rogue employers are now operating in Scotland and offering zero-hours contracts to people who are desperate for work. Their victims are mainly low-paid, low-skilled workers. Often, they are women who work part time.
Youth unemployment still afflicts one young person in four in Scotland. However, it affects not only school leavers but graduates who are looking for, and failing to find, their first step on the career ladder.
These are complex problems, and all politicians need to work together to find solutions for eradicating them and assisting the people who are involved.
Glasgow City Council is working to combat some of the problems. It is taking notable steps to ensure that the worst effects of the recession are minimised. Those steps include local economic initiatives; using the third sector to support employment to get people back into work; ensuring that the physical regeneration of the city is used to create jobs and employment; and having an absolute commitment to eradicate youth unemployment from Glasgow. Those are all tough measures from a council that is committed to fighting unemployment.
However, we know that those measures are not enough. Historically, Glasgow has a legacy of unemployment and benefit dependency. It still has an unemployment rate of 10.9 per cent, compared with only 8.2 per cent for the rest of Scotland. It needs radical solutions to enable it to flourish and reach its full potential. Greater capital investment spend on projects would have a major impact on its economy. That would kick-start the city’s construction industry, which is vital if its economy is to advance.
We all want employability to improve in Scotland. Our economic future depends on that. I urge the Government to consider taking steps to assist and enable Glasgow’s economy to flourish and thereafter allow the city to avoid the issues that have blighted its past.
16:36
The debate has been wide ranging, interesting and productive. Members of all parties have put useful contributions into the mix.
I noted in particular Elaine Murray talking about the confusing landscape. It is not easy for employers—particularly smaller employers—to work out what opportunities exist so that they can get involved.
I, too, attended a workshop on Friday last week as a member of the Finance Committee, in Dundee. At that workshop, an owner of a small business made the point that they are in charge of human resources and health and safety, and that they also have to deal with the payroll, win business and clean the office. Trying to find ways to make things as easy as possible for all businesses, particularly smaller businesses, to engage is critical.
Elaine Murray also talked about transport difficulties in rural constituencies. She gave two anecdotal examples, but I suspect that the problem is far wider. Such problems probably translate across much of the country.
My colleague Alex Johnstone talked again about labour mobility and made points that ought to be taken on board.
John Park, as ever, made a fairly thoughtful contribution. He focused in particular on skills utilisation and leadership and management aspects that are sometimes missed.
The convener of the Finance Committee, Kenneth Gibson, rightly focused most of his remarks on those who are furthest away from the labour market. The Finance Committee is involved in an inquiry into that matter. Those people can be easily forgotten because it is far easier, quicker and cheaper to get those who are on the edge of the labour market back into it than to get into it those who may be several years away from even getting close to it. However, we forget them at our peril.
Liam McArthur from the Liberal Democrats touched on two issues that probably deserve a bit more exploration—certainly in the future, if not today. A good look at the distribution of modern apprenticeships in the public and private sectors and a breakdown of them among large, small and medium-sized companies in the private sector would be helpful so that we have a better handle on things. I note in passing that the matter was raised at the Finance Committee and the minister’s written response was based on work that was carried out in 2006. That work was useful and it may give us an inkling of where we are now, but it ought to be updated sooner rather than later.
On the key themes, I must touch on colleges, which have featured in the debate. I did not major on them in my opening speech, purely because the minister in front of us does not have specific responsibility for the budget for colleges, but they have been a key feature of the debate that I must comment on. According to the draft budget, there will be a cut in the colleges budget in 2013-14. It does not matter how that is dressed up; there will be a pretty substantial cut from the budget in 2011-12. We can talk about how colleges were well funded in the past and how we would like to do more, but the reality is that, even taking into account efficiency savings, transformation and mergers, there will be a cut in the teaching budget for our colleges in particular.
It is not just politicians who make that point. Yesterday, at the Finance Committee, Professor Jeremy Peat commented on the issue. The Official Report of the meeting is not out yet, so I cannot quote him directly, but he stated that he was worried about the resources for the skills development end of further education as he did not feel that it was sufficiently resourced. If I have slightly misquoted him, I apologise, but I have not seen the Official Report of the meeting.
It is not good enough for Mr Crawford to stand up and say that the SNP is meeting its manifesto commitments. Since the manifesto was written, youth unemployment has got demonstrably worse and far worse than most of us anticipated. That is the reason for having a Minister for Youth Employment, which was a response to the situation. For the SNP to say that it has met its manifesto commitments is of little comfort to the almost 100,000 people who are sitting out there unemployed.
The other big theme that was picked up by members from every party and mentioned by the minister is the frustration of employers. There is a crowded landscape out there, with many initiatives. For many employers, it is difficult to work out what is going on. I hope that, as I requested at the start of the debate, we will get an update in the minister’s closing speech on the SDS skillsforce and the idea of a one-stop shop, so that if we have a similar debate in several months’ or several years’ time, employers will be able to say that there is a difference on the ground. It is not how many initiatives we put out there that matters; it is what employers say to us. Only if they are impressed by it and it works for them will it work for people looking for jobs.
I have a final point that has not featured heavily in the debate, but I would be grateful if the minister could address it, even briefly. An announcement was made in May this year about £25 million coming from European structural funds. In June, Alex Neil, who was then Cabinet Secretary for Capital Investment and Infrastructure, said clearly that the £25 million
“now fully approved by Scotland’s Programme Monitoring Committee, almost doubles the funding that the First Minister announced in December”.
Given that it was “fully approved” in June, can we have an update on the position of that £25 million so that we can see what actions are being taken?
Before I call Kezia Dugdale, I remind members that all members who have taken part in the debate should be present in the chamber for the start of closing speeches.
16:42
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I would like to make some consensual comments and suggestions to the minister before addressing some of the points that have been made.
This morning, I visited Fort Kinnaird shopping park in the east of Edinburgh—I am sure that the minister is familiar with it—where 1,400 people are employed in the retail industry. Today, it opened its Christmas jobs fair. It was a pleasant experience to see partnership working there between the public and private sectors in Edinburgh. Fort Kinnaird retail park paid for big portakabins to be set up with computers inside and encouraged people to use them to apply for jobs. There are also desks and space for employment advisers so that the public sector can do its bit and provide careers advisers, DWP officials and all the people needed to do the partnership working and make it work for the people who are desperately in need of employment in the east of Edinburgh.
The jobs fair is going to be there for three and a half weeks. There are 350 jobs available and, in the first three days, 450 people have come through the doors, which gives a good picture of the appetite for Christmas jobs across Edinburgh and what we can do about that.
That work has been driven by the Capital City Partnership, which is an organisation that I am sure the minister is aware of and which I am hugely fond of. It contributes heavily to Edinburgh’s joined up for jobs strategy and is doing some great work there. It recognises that it has a key role in job creation—I know that the minister does not always accept that it is within the powers of government to do that. In the CCP’s view, it creates jobs by unlocking and de-risking. It has the capacity to unlock latent vacancies, which organisations perhaps do not know they have, by de-risking the process and taking out some of the challenges that organisations face. In doing so, it can provide recruitment support, engagement and the necessary skills to enable small, medium and large businesses to take on people whom they might not otherwise be willing to take on.
If the minister is still informing her thinking about how the job subsidy programme could work in future, I encourage her to consider how the CCP is developing its plans. Fantastic work is being done because SNP and Labour are joining forces in the City of Edinburgh Council to make productive things happen. I say that to the minister in the most genuine way, because we can achieve great things when we listen to and interact and engage with each other.
I have been pushing hard for the business gateway in Edinburgh to become embedded in the council’s employability arm. The council is moving towards having a one-stop shop for businesses, which very much relates to what Gavin Brown talked about. When a business contacts the council, it will be able to access information about recruitment, engagement and skills, and the same person at the shop front will be able to guide it through the planning process and deal with building control issues if the business is looking to expand, or deal with environmental health issues.
Small businesses tell me that that is exactly what they need if they are to be in a position to take on more people—young or not. From their perspective and the council’s perspective, the one-stop shop is a great way of hiding the wiring, as I was told. There is just one person to deal with, and the business does not need to worry about the mess behind the scenes. It needs only to access the support at the start of the process. I encourage the minister to go and see that fantastic work.
Elaine Murray made an excellent point about people’s difficulties in navigating the infrastructure around employability and the desperate need for a one-stop shop. Margaret McCulloch reminded us that we need to retain the aspiration for full employment in this country. We should never lose sight of that ambition. I pay tribute to the leadership that Margaret McCulloch has demonstrated in her community by organising jobs fairs and linking people who desperately need jobs with employment opportunities.
Kezia Dugdale talked about the Christmas jobs fair. Does the need for such fairs not demonstrate why full employment is not realistic, because there will always be spikes in employment, particularly at Christmas?
The member needs to look up “full employment”, because I think that he does not understand the concept.
Bruce Crawford asked me to be more positive. I am a very cheery and positive person. I welcomed the money for the social enterprise challenge fund the first time the Government announced it and I welcomed it the second time that the Government announced it, so it should come as no surprise to Bruce Crawford that I welcomed it when the Government announced it for the third time, last week.
On the budget, I welcomed the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth’s announcement two weeks ago about the creation of 10,000 jobs, and I welcome the clarification from the Minister for Youth Employment today that that will be done through a wage subsidy scheme. It is great that that is happening, but such action was the first thing that Labour called for on the minister’s appointment, so why has there been a 15-month delay? I appreciate that we should not hark back to the past, but the point is important.
My recollection is that the Labour Party’s manifesto promised a fund that would create 10,000 jobs for people of all ages and that the fund would not be targeted at young people. Perhaps Kezia Dugdale will concede that the purpose of my appointment was to marshal all available resources and that, since my appointment, I have not just doubled but nearly tripled the available budget, which enables us to move forward with an ambitious wage subsidy programme.
I am quite willing to accept that. I have encouraged the minister to think flexibly, roll with the times and adjust to the economic climate that we face. She is doing that on youth employment. I should say that she is not doing that on apprenticeships, as members have said, given that about 10,000 of her 26,000 modern apprenticeships are going to people who are already in work.
Graeme Dey, who is no longer in the chamber—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I could not see him. Graeme Dey mentioned the increased number of engineering apprenticeships in his constituency, Angus, which I very much welcome. However, if he looks at the overall figures for the whole of Scotland, he will see that the percentage of apprenticeships that are in engineering has fallen from 13 to 5 per cent; the percentage of apprenticeships that are in construction has fallen from 22 to 9 per cent; and the percentage of apprenticeships that are electro-technical has fallen from 9 to 2 per cent. That is why our amendment refers to the need for the apprenticeship programme to match the future skills needs of the economy.
Will the member give way?
I have only 45 seconds left, so I cannot give way.
Colin Beattie made some excellent points about procurement processes and I encourage him to make a contribution to his Government’s procurement bill process. He might be interested to know that only 31 per cent of council procurement spend is in local economies, which is in stark contrast to 39 per cent in Wales and 54 per cent in Northern Ireland. As a country we have a long way to go, and we can look to other nations in the United Kingdom for the lessons on how best to do that.
My colleague Ken Macintosh began the debate by talking about the devastating impact that college and housing cuts have on the employment agenda and youth unemployment, and it is for those reasons that we lodged our amendment. We will vote for the Government’s motion but, as outlined previously, we are simply stating the bare facts. It is hard to do that in the current environment, so I encourage members to vote for our amendment.
16:51
Presiding Officer, I must offer my apologies to you and Anne McTaggart for briefly slipping out of the chamber. It has been a long debate and I confess that I drank a bit too much water.
There have been some notable speeches this afternoon. As always, John Park spoke from a position of knowledge and experience. Dennis Robertson made a resounding speech, as did Bruce Crawford. To be fair, Elaine Murray made an important speech, too, in making the link between housing and employability. I will ask the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities to respond to her wider points on housing, but I must say that this Administration is building more houses than any previous Administration.
I am not sure about Mr Johnstone delivering the same speech to Parliament more than once—that is not cricket. I thought that members were not allowed to do that and it is not a practice to be encouraged.
On a positive note, we have had a responsible discussion about the statistics. Yes, 10,000 more young people are in employment than this time last year, but youth unemployment has risen, as it is rising across Europe. The employment rate for women is higher in Scotland than in the rest of the UK, but women’s employment has fallen over the last quarter—although that is not the trend over the past year. We must always look at the trends that underlie the headline figures. It is important that we accurately tell it how it is when we discuss statistics and that we do not compound the situation. For me, one unemployed Scot is one too many and I am sure that that view is shared across the chamber.
“Working for Growth: A Refresh of the Employability Framework for Scotland” can, in essence, be encapsulated in the statement that it is about our people who are looking for work and that we must make the most of our collaborations and partnerships to ensure a person-centred response to help them on their journey. As John Park described, that response can sometimes be rather fractured and unhelpful, and we must always work hard to ensure that our citizens are not passed from pillar to post. If we are serious about economic growth, we must also be serious about tackling inequality and the barriers associated with age, gender and disability.
The debate’s largest theme was about the importance of employers. I have always been clear that, after unemployed people, they are the most important group. There is huge untapped capacity and potential in employers, particularly smaller employers.
I know that members are impatient to hear a lot more about our skillsforce, but it is currently being tested by small businesses and will be unveiled very soon.
One of the biggest issues that we face is the fact that more than 95 per cent of our businesses in Scotland are small or micro. Has the Scottish Government considered how it might pull small employers together or provide a host employer so that they could have the benefit of training apprentices, which many of them do not have at the moment?
I know that there are many employers—in this instance, I am thinking of larger employers such as Sir Robert McAlpine—that work together with, nurture and support smaller employers in their supply chain.
Another point that John Park and Kezia Dugdale touched on is that we must remove the risk for employers, particularly small employers and sole traders. We must dispel the myths and take away the perceived risks surrounding recruitment, because we have 200,000 sole traders in this country and if we could encourage them and provide more of them with practical support and financial incentives to take on a young person it would do a lot not just for young people but for economic growth in this country.
In the spirit of consensus, I mentioned earlier the great work that is being done by Labour and SNP in the City of Edinburgh Council. Will the minister come with me on a joint visit to see what the Capital City Partnership is doing, so that the whole country can learn about what we are doing together in Edinburgh?
I would look forward to that very much indeed. The Capital City Partnership is no stranger to me.
As the member touched on, the important point here is about the responsibility that individual members have and the work that they can do. Margaret McCulloch is to be commended for organising a jobs fair in her region. I know that Kenneth Gibson is doing the same and that James Dornan is having such a fair this Friday, at which I will be present. I very much welcome what Stuart McMillan said about the companies in the Greenock area in his region—Stepper Technology and MES Marine & Engineering Services—that are leading the way in employing young people.
I turn briefly to the amendments. I am not inclined to accept the Tory amendment. [Interruption.] Is that because of Mr Johnstone’s speech? There is a little bit more to it than that. It struck me that the amendment was just a bit mean-spirited and contained the implication that we were wasting money. As I intimated to Gavin Brown earlier, I report to Michael Russell and to John Swinney. Anyone who knows anything about John Swinney will know that it is necessary to be robust to get each penny of expenditure past him. I am just so glad that John Swinney is my boss and not my husband. [Laughter.] Mr Russell may laugh, but I spend so much time having to account to Mr Swinney on value for money and how I am spending my budget that, unlike Labour members, I have never had time to read Mr Russell’s books.
We have had an outbreak of consensus in the tone and substance of the debate but, as Bruce Crawford said, the Labour amendment is a bit of a moanfest of an amendment. I assure the whole chamber that this Government is not in denial. We are most certainly not in denial about Tory cuts, which are being made right now. We are making tough decisions and reforming public services such as colleges while maintaining our priorities. We are providing 116,000 full-time-equivalent places and, through opportunities for all, we have given an unprecedented guarantee to every 16 to 19-year-old in this country who needs a place in training or education.
Instead of griping, members should be promoting the opportunities for all helpline, which is 0800 917 8000. Instead of showboating on politics, perhaps like Margaret McCulloch and Kenneth Gibson they could be doing something in their constituency to give young people practical assistance.
A few days ago, Ed Miliband talked about wanting more apprenticeships. Last week, Johann Lamont talked about cutting them. Let us have some honest politics. How many apprenticeships is Labour going to cut and in which framework? It can give that answer to the 105,000 young unemployed Scots.