Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 5, 2023

Official Report 953KB pdf

---

Post-school Education and Skills Reform

The next item of business is a statement by Graeme Dey on post-school education and skills reform. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

14:21  

The timing of the statement reflects the need to strike a balance between having developed sufficiently our thinking on plans for post-school education and skills reform, and satisfying the understandable desire in Parliament and beyond for insight into that. Today, I want to outline where we have got to in our work, and to note that there will be an extended and welcome opportunity for further exploration of those matters when I attend the Education, Children and Young People Committee in January.

I have been clear from the outset that the case for change that James Withers set out was convincing. That was evident in the priorities that we set out in “Purpose and Principles for Post-School Education, Research and Skills” and other publications. Since then, we have been working through the practicalities and complexity of the proposed reforms and the choreography of change. We have, in some areas, completed that assessment phase and moved into developing our approach.

However, there are other areas—I want to be open about this—on which we are still finalising our thinking. I echo the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills’ point that reform is a process, not an event. However, members should be in no doubt that my intention is to deliver the change that is needed as quickly and effectively as possible, putting excellence and equity first. I believe that the time that is invested now in getting our approach right will pay dividends further down the line.

Our post-school education, research and skills system must deliver in two regards: it must give people the opportunity that they need throughout their lifetimes to fulfil their potential, and it must enable the vital research, innovation and knowledge exchange that underpin Scotland’s global competitiveness. That is how we will support communities and the economy to thrive.

Since June, I have visited colleges, universities, workplaces, community projects and schools, and have met employers, apprentices, learners and educators. I have also met Opposition spokespeople. I have listened. I have been greatly encouraged by what I have heard, which is a genuine desire to rise to the challenges of reform. Nowhere is that more apparent than among the front-line staff at Skills Development Scotland, the Scottish Funding Council and the Student Awards Agency Scotland, where I have been met with enthusiasm and constructive and creative ideas about how to improve our offering to learners and about the areas of careers, apprenticeships and skills planning.

Reform is about more than the individual parts—it is about the whole system performing and seeing itself as more than the sum of those parts. Although reform must be a collective effort, it is for the Government to lead: we will lead the system through change, while seeking to ensure that no one is left behind.

Education is a fundamental right, not a privilege: everyone must have the opportunity to succeed. Community learning and development can be a first step along that path, through supporting some of our most vulnerable people.

However, eight months into post, I am not as clear as I want to be about how effective our current approach is. We need that clarity as we strive to ensure that all learning pathways deliver. That is why I am announcing a short independent review of community learning. The review will provide me and colleagues from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities with recommendations by June 2024. It will be undertaken by Kate Still, who will bring her extensive experience to bear on the issue.

Community learning is only one of many paths that are available in a modern economy in which technical and people-centred skills are increasingly important. There is no wrong or less-esteemed path, whether that path is via college, school, work, university or a community initiative. They are all essential parts of a modern education and skills system.

The strength of our universities is rightly recognised around the world, and I want to support our college sector to realise its full potential. An important step towards that has been the establishment of a tripartite group made up of the Government, the Scottish Funding Council and college principals that engages directly on matters that the sector believes will allow it to operate better.

There is an appetite to expand that approach to encompass other aspects of reform, capturing our universities, employers and others who are keen to champion change across the system. As part of that, I will invite representation from university and college principals on the ministerial group that the cabinet secretary is establishing, in order to reflect their experience as practitioners.

Turning to skills, I have set out the intention that Government will lead skills planning at the national level in recognition that we must be clear about the country’s strategic skills needs and to ensure that our education and skills system is able to meet those needs. To date, we have looked at skills on sectoral and regional bases, driven by demand and opportunity, but we need to improve how we translate that analysis into meaningful action.

I set out my intention to strengthen skills planning at the regional level, so that local partners, especially colleges and employers, are empowered to better align provision to regional needs and ambitions. We must take on that challenge with the support of employers, educational institutions, local government and training providers. We all have roles to play in improving skills planning and implementing it for the benefit of Scotland’s economy and society.? With a refreshed approach to planning, we must make sure that the right qualifications and provision are available where they are needed. Our national qualifications body will have a key role to play, which will require it to be agile in order that it can respond to the coming asks.

Apprenticeships will continue to be a vital part of the mix. Modern apprenticeships have been a huge success, and I want colleges to play an even more instrumental role in that area. Graduate apprenticeships show promise and scope for further development, so I look forward to working with universities and industry on that.?

My officials will lead further development of apprenticeships policy and will bring together the full variety of voices, as well as creative and new thinking, in order to deliver the very best outcomes for learners and employers. I am also keen to explore how to develop apprenticeship pathways, for example, through modularisation, to make it easier for small businesses, including rural businesses, to benefit better.

Employers will continue to be central to the design and delivery of apprenticeships—as they should be to all provision. I have asked my officials to review and strengthen how we work with, and across, all sectors.

In reforming the system, we must, of course, address funding. The cabinet secretary and I have, since coming into our roles, had to make some incredibly difficult decisions, and the recent United Kingdom budget statement does little to improve the outlook for Scotland. We are in an era when both of the main UK parties are intent on doubling down on austerity, which means, more than ever, that every pound that is invested here must deliver for Scotland’s people. To do that, we need to reduce complexities and make sure that more investment supports learners, while we also ensure that funding makes the greatest possible impact. That will be done in line with our key principle, which is that education should be based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay.

In the same way as we brought people together for the tripartite group, we will draw on the wealth of professional and practitioner expertise across the system to develop and design our future funding landscape in order to deliver the best value for money and the most seamless service for learners.?Change of that magnitude will not happen overnight—in some instances, it might best be delivered incrementally.

James Withers called for the creation of a single funding body, and we do not rule that out. As an initial step, I commit to bringing learner support funding together in one place, and funding for apprenticeship provision together in one place. We will work closely with SFC, SAAS and SDS on how we will make that happen.?

Let me also be clear, though, that public funding alone will not be enough. That has been and will be a key feature of discussions with businesses, with which I have already embarked on a series of round-table discussions.?I have been heartened by the engagement in that space. Our system must meet their needs, but we must look at where business can go further to support the system and learners. I know that many businesses stand ready and willing to do that.

For people who are in the education system, we must ensure that the right information and advice are there to help them to make informed choices on their future. Grahame Smith is doing important work for us with the careers collaborative, which brings together many partners that support and contribute to careers information advice and guidance, in addition to SDS.?

Our immediate focus is on developing a clearer and more coherent modus operandi for our national careers offering. Between the careers service that currently sits with?SDS, the Developing the Young Workforce network and third sector initiatives such as Career Ready, we have the foundations to develop our careers offering into something that we can be truly proud of—and that is what we will do. We need not necessarily wait on structural change to begin progressing that work.

I am under no illusion about the scale of change that is required or the time that it will take to deliver, in certain respects. Nevertheless, today I can say without hesitation that the Government will take the lead on national skills planning and will strengthen regional approaches. There will be simpler and more impactful funding for learners and providers; changes to apprenticeships to better reflect economic and learner needs; improvements in the quality and clarity of our careers offering; and a clear role for employers throughout.

We will take that forward with experts and practitioners while listening attentively to users, and we will be guided by their knowledge and experience.

I also know, however, that delivery of real reform requires commitment and direction from the Government, which is where my focus lies, so I look forward to continuing engagement with the Parliament on that.

The minister will now take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement. I intend to allow up to 20 minutes for questions, after which we will need to move on to the next item of business. I encourage members who wish to ask a question to press their request-to-speak button, if they have not already done so.

Today’s PISA—programme for international student assessment—results make stark the need for action. However, seven months on from the Withers report, we have seen little progress, and we have even had an admission that, after eight months, the minister does not quite know what is working and what is not.

The minister has previously said—rightly—that the landscape is constantly changing, and that without action we risk being left behind. On the single funding body, can the minister give us any timeline for when that is going to happen, what the process will be and what form the body will take?

On the national employers forum, which was suggested by Withers but was not mentioned in the statement today, what is the minister’s thinking, and what will be the role of the Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board within that?

Finally, when will we know the minister’s view on the amount and payment of the flexible workforce development fund?

There was a lot in there. On the single funding body, I hope that Liam Kerr will recognise that that is a complex piece of work to carry out—not least because it involves the staff who will be captured by it. It is appropriate, therefore, that we take the right amount of time to develop our consideration of the matter. I say gently to the member that James Withers himself has welcomed the measured approach that we have taken to that, because we have to get it right.

On the employers forum, we are looking at that. Liam Kerr mentioned SAAB. I make it clear that we want, and need, the widest range of employers’ voices to be heard in the process. I emphasised that point when I met the Federation of Small Businesses Scotland. However, as I made clear when I met SAAB some months ago, we want, and we envisage, the expertise of the board and its members helping to drive and deliver reform locally and nationally. I have also committed to embedding the recommendations of SAAB’s gender commission in the skills system, through the reform process.

I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. As he knows, this is an incredibly important area, and we need to get it right if we are going to address the opportunities and the challenges that we face in our economy. Again, however, six months on from the Withers review—I do not know exactly whether it is six or seven months—I worry about whether we have sufficient clarity specifically with regard to the what, the how and the when of reform.

Will a timeline come forward for implementation across the 14 recommendations in Withers? Will we have clarity on institutions, at least regarding whether it will be existing or new institutions that will take forward the roles in relation to funding, qualifications and employer voice?

Lastly, and perhaps most urgently, we need a plan for delivering flexible skills at the point of need for upskilling and reskilling. That does not need structural reform, so—given that it is the number 1 ask from business—will a plan be forthcoming?

Answering those questions would address the points on the urgency and clarity that the sector so badly needs.

I will deal with the last point first. I absolutely agree with the member on that. The reskilling and upskilling piece of work can be done without structural change, and it has been the subject of discussions in the past few days between myself and employers, and also the college sector, because that is a real opportunity for the sector as well. We are attempting to progress that.

I absolutely get the member’s point about getting clarity as soon as possible. However, I am sure that if we dived into the process, Daniel Johnson would, a year or two years from now, be pulling me up about errors that had been made because we did not take our time to consider things.

On the point about developing a timeline, I absolutely get that. We need to provide Parliament and stakeholders with a clear idea of the timelines involved. Some of the reforms can be done relatively quickly without structural change or legislation, while others will require that sort of work, so we will seek to deliver that as soon as we possibly can.

Workplace learning, including apprenticeships, provides a most effective route for skills acquisition for learners and employers. What will the skills review do to increase opportunities for workplace learning across the skills system?

Workplace learning that is co-designed with employers, including apprenticeships, is an integral part of a strong education and skills system. The planned reforms, particularly those to ensure that employers play a central role in the system, will help to strengthen the links between business, skills and education to integrate more workplace learning and support current and future workforce needs. That is certainly the intention.

As the beneficiary of an apprenticeship programme after I left school, I know where that path can lead. Apprenticeships are often the forgotten pillar of post-school education, but they are key to upskilling and providing a workforce that delivers for Scotland. However, the available funding remains minimal and, although the minister referred to bringing together funding for apprenticeship provision, he did not commit to providing more funding. Will he guarantee to spend on apprenticeships every penny that is raised through apprenticeship levies?

I do not know who has forgotten about apprenticeships, but it is certainly not me. The commitment to apprenticeships is hardly minimal. Substantial funding is provided for the delivery of apprenticeships. As I indicated in my statement, apprenticeships in all their guises—foundation apprenticeships, graduate apprenticeships and modern apprenticeships—will play an integral part in the work that we are going to do.

Will the minister expand on how training and course provision might be better aligned with employers’ needs?

That is one subject that I have been having conversations with employers about. We want training and course provision to respond better to Scotland’s economic and social needs and our future ambitions, which I am sure is exactly what employers want, too. That is at the heart of the skills planning approach that we are developing, together with employers, providers and other partners.

Our aim is to embed the role of employers in all aspects of the skills system, which includes skills planning at the national and regional levels, training, course provision, qualifications and careers services. To give an example, as part of our national skills planning approach, I am asking my Government colleagues to identify our national economic and social priorities across portfolios, engage with employers to identify skills needs that are relevant to those priorities—not just the numbers of people who are required—and engage with training and education providers to understand how we can meet those needs.

I am again, as I imagine many others will be, sorely disappointed that the Government has come to the chamber with another statement that has little substance. Nothing that the minister has said today will reassure the sector. Colleges are really struggling, finances are broken, staff are tired and angry, and students are seeing courses at risk of being cut. In some cases, there are serious questions about governance. Universities are in a similarly difficult position. More people are deferring entry or withdrawing, and institutions face a huge gap between the cost of providing education and the funding that they get to do it. Will the minister take the opportunity now to say what specific action the Government will take to address those immediate concerns?

I say with the greatest respect that that question might have been penned before Pam Duncan-Glancy heard the statement. I do not recognise at all the representation that the college sector is broken. I have been to colleges the length and breadth of the country. Colleges are doing good, innovative work, and I do not think that they would appreciate being characterised in such a way. My conversations with colleges have been entirely productive. Finance is an issue, and there are great challenges, but the college sector is as up as anyone is for taking on the challenge.

Can the minister say anything about how he sees the role of Skills Development Scotland? I understand that James Withers recommended reducing its role. Is there an opportunity to reduce the number of organisations that are involved?

Skills Development Scotland remains an integral part of our education and skills system, and it continues to undertake valuable work in a variety of areas, such as careers services and apprenticeship delivery. Over the past few months, I have had the opportunity to meet a number of staff teams in SDS and have been struck by their passion, creativity and desire to improve our offer to individuals and employers.

Changes are likely to be needed in the public body landscape in the future, but it is too early to speculate on exactly what those changes will be. Decisions will be based on the evidence and informed by detailed policy development and analysis. However, in the light of budget pressures and the overall drive for public service reform, it is clear that the status quo is not an option.

The minister knows that I have been critical of previous education ministers and their inaction on the skills agenda, and about the underfunding of colleges. However, I am moderately satisfied with the plan, which sets out a single source of skills funding, a national careers service and a central place for employers. I press the minister to give a bit more detail on the flexible workforce development fund. Is that continuing? Will he give us a sense of how urgent he thinks carrying out the reform should be?

I could say that I am deeply concerned that Willie Rennie is “moderately satisfied” with the plan, but that would be churlish of me.

On the pace of reform, we will go as quickly as possible. I look forward to engaging with Mr Rennie at the Education, Children and Young People Committee next month, when I am sure we will have the opportunity to get into that in more detail.

On the flexible workforce development fund, I hope to be in a position to make an announcement on this year’s funding shortly. I fully understand the desire for clarity.

With regard to the future, we are exploring the whole piece on upskilling, reskilling, training and how that is delivered as part of the wider offering.

I agree with the minister that everyone must have the opportunity to succeed, and that community learning and development is crucial in supporting some of our most vulnerable people. How does the minister envisage community learning and development interacting with the post-school reform agenda?

The independent review of CLD offers a timely opportunity to better understand how we can ensure that the proposed changes to the education and skills system have a focus on the most marginalised learner.

The review links directly to reforming the education and skills landscape. Without prejudicing the outcome, I think that connecting that work has the potential to create a more joined-up system that has clear routes for progression for adults and young people who are currently disengaged from learning and/or work. To be blunt, as the minister who is leading on the reform, I want to be as confident as I can be that we are not leaving anyone behind.

The minister speaks of the need to reduce complexities, and he will be aware of the recommendations from the recent report on college regionalisation. In his statement, we heard of the need to ensure that more investment supports learners while ensuring that funding makes the greatest impact. Despite that, he made no reference to the disparity in funding between university and college students, with the latter receiving £2,500 less investment per person. Will the minister guarantee parity of funding between university and college students?

The member makes an important point about the landscape, but I point out to her that James Withers is clear that there is no shortage of funding in the post-16 landscape; rather, the issue is duplication, and he questions where some of the funding is deployed.

I am not going to stand here today and start a bun fight between colleges and universities about funding. However, I remember from serving on the Education Children and Young People Committee with Sue Webber that that was evidence that we took. I recognise that we need to have a detailed conversation with all parts of the landscape about future funding and how we ensure fairness of funding.

The minister knows, like we all do, that Covid has undoubtedly had an impact on our young people. How will he ensure that our young people—particularly those who are now furthest from employment as a result of that impact—have the skills and qualifications that they need to succeed?

Ensuring that that happens is heavily dependent on partners, and I pay tribute to all of them in that regard.

I am keen that we build on the excellent work that is being led by the developing the young workforce initiative, Career Ready and the many other partnerships that are already in place, linking institutions and employers, to increase the range of access to meaningful work experience opportunities for learners.

Where possible, it is clearly beneficial for those opportunities to have direct relevance to learners’ abilities and interests. However, we should also recognise that work experience in itself brings many benefits and development for learners. I encourage all employers to consider what high-quality work experience opportunities they might be able to offer to learners and to help us to expand the offer. I know that that will be of mutual benefit to them and to learners.

I like the minister, and I enjoyed being on the Education, Children and Young People Committee with him, but he has come to the chamber with a statement that has nothing really in it. I do not know whether that is to meet a commitment to make a statement, but there is nothing in it to get excited about, frankly.

I am delighted that the minister has an appetite for reform, but employers are impatient, because they see and are living with the consequences of a skills crisis. Demand for apprenticeships is outstripping the supply that the Government is prepared to fund. Many businesses pay an apprenticeship levy, but the fact is that not every penny of that levy goes towards apprenticeships. That is just not right. Will the minister confirm that it is his intention, as well as that of the cabinet secretary, that every penny of the apprenticeship levy that is accrued for apprenticeship schemes in Scotland is actually spent on apprenticeships, and that the demand that there is among employers will be met by the supply that he provides?

It is impossible to answer that question, and I will tell Mr Kerr why. Mr Kerr’s party’s Government in the UK does not share with us the amount of money that is raised in Scotland through the apprenticeship levy. We are blind to that figure. It is incorporated into the block grant.

However, I can tell Mr Kerr that a substantial sum of money is spent on apprenticeships in this country. I have to say that his negativity—predictable though it is—is completely at odds with the positive engagement that I have had with employers. Yes, they are anxious that we get on with this, but I have found only positivity among employers, and long may that continue.

How will the minister guarantee that universities’ autonomy will not be threatened by any plans for a single funding body?

I think that Mr Lumsden is referring to the research aspect. Universities have aired that concern. We are very much alive to that, and it is very much in our thinking as we take our work forward.