Skills
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2694, in the name of Jim Wallace, on skills.
This afternoon, I open a debate on an issue that I am sure everyone in the chamber recognises as fundamentally important to ensuring the future prosperity of Scotland. Although members clearly have different views about the means, I think that there is unanimity in the chamber on the ultimate goal and a shared belief that achieving improved skills is central to Scotland's future economic performance.
It is important to acknowledge at the outset that our approach to skills improvement in Scotland is in some respects different from the approach that is taken in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is right and sensible, as we seek to meet specific Scottish needs in a variety of ways. Our approach to the skills agenda must have a comprehensive rationale. That, too, is important.
The rationale is given at the highest level in "The Framework for Economic Development in Scotland". It finds more detailed expression in our lifelong learning strategy, "Life Through Learning; Learning Through Life", and is a key tenet of our strategy for enterprise, "A Smart, Successful Scotland: Ambitions for the Enterprise Networks". Those strategies recognise that a strong focus on skills is central to growing the economy sustainably over the long term, which is the top priority of this devolved Government.
We are talking not about a one-size-fits-all solution, but about a strategy that aims to address the skills needs of all in Scotland through identifying different sectoral needs. We aim to address the needs of young people, employers, people in work and people out of work. If I may, I will take each of those groups in turn.
Our young people are the future drivers of Scotland's economy. "Determined to Succeed: Enterprise in Education", our innovative strategy for enterprise in education, aims to expose young people to enterprise from the earliest years at school. It aims to ensure that they have the confidence, ambition and creativity to participate fully in the world of work. I believe that that is an investment for the long term, with the potential to effect radical and long-lasting change.
Scotland's record on further and higher education is good; indeed, in many cases, it is world class. Around 50 per cent of young Scots participate in higher education today. Scotland continues to lead the United Kingdom in that regard, with over 18 per cent of young full-time first degree entrants coming from low participation communities. In the period between 1998-99 and 2002-03, there was a 23 per cent increase in further education enrolments.
Nonetheless, we must address the skills needs of the young people who do not go into FE or HE. Our modern apprenticeship programme combines employment experience and learning. We now have more than 34,000 modern apprentices in Scotland, which exceeds our partnership agreement target two years ahead of schedule.
I am sure that we all share the minister's delight in those high participation rates. However, does he share my concern that the "Higher Education in Scotland: 1st Update Report", which came out in March, shows that the age participation index has dropped from 51.5 per cent in 2001-02 to 48.9 per cent in 2002-03? What is the explanation for that not insubstantial drop in the API?
Although there is no scientifically proven reason for the drop in the API, one explanation could be that more people have gone into employment, as employment levels increased over the same period. I am not claiming that that is the full answer, but it is the most likely explanation.
The Executive will continue to focus on issues of quality and completion rates in the modern apprenticeship programme. The programme clearly demonstrates our commitment to achieving our goal of a Scotland where people demand and providers deliver a high-quality learning experience. We know that our young people are Scotland's future, so we wish them to have the skills that enable them to be full citizens, to be creative and enterprising and to face the challenges of work and business.
It is clear that the skills challenges that employers face are changing and intensifying. That is why we are building the skills for business network in conjunction with colleagues at Westminster. The skills for business network is important because it will enable employers to influence the skills agenda, which in turn will help to drive up productivity. There are 23 licensed or recommended sector skills councils and their engagement with employers and business will ensure that skills issues remain a priority of workforce development.
When I meet employers, many of them tell me that one of the biggest barriers to workforce development is the effort that is needed to find appropriate training, so it is vital to provide information and advice on training for business. As well as offering dedicated business advice, the enterprise networks give specific advice for start-up and growing companies. In providing a national service for businesses, learndirect Scotland concentrates its efforts on small to medium-sized enterprises and provides training partners, who visit businesses to facilitate workplace learning.
We must always remember that most businesses in Scotland are small businesses, so it is only right that we offer specific help to allow them to address their needs. Business learning accounts are being piloted with businesses that have not previously invested in training. The aim is to provide advice and guidance and to fund up to half the cost of a training plan.
We are doing a lot to meet employers' skills needs in a sustainable way, but I believe that businesses must be more demanding of Government, of colleges and other training providers and of themselves and their workforce. That means encouraging companies to appreciate the value of training for themselves, helping them to develop their employees' potential and, through doing that, helping them to develop the potential of their businesses.
I turn to the training needs of people who are in work. We recognise that, as well as working with employers, we need to reach people who are in work in different ways so that they can improve their skills or acquire new skills, both for their own benefit and for that of their future employers. We are ensuring that universities and colleges provide flexible learning opportunities for those who are in work and that modern apprenticeships are open to over-25s so that they can improve their skills and career prospects. We are providing literacy and numeracy initiatives such as the big plus, which has helped to remove the stigma for those who seek help. Through the efforts of union learning representatives, we are working closely with the trade unions to exploit the expertise and reach that they have in relation to skills development.
It is vital that we address the skills needs of people who are out of work. Although the claimant-count unemployment rate in Scotland, which stands at 3.3 per cent, is at its lowest level of my adult lifetime, for those people who are still without jobs, skills development remains one of the surest routes back into employment. As became apparent in the discussion at question time that followed Robert Brown's question, it is especially important to address the situation of those in the 16 to 19-year-old age group who are not in education, employment or training. The research suggests that people who have not had education, employment or training at that age are more likely to find themselves out of work later in life. That is why we are focusing our efforts on that age group.
In that context, does Jim Wallace accept that it is just as—if not more—important to tackle the issue during people's school years as it is to tackle it after they have left school, when the boat has sunk?
I fully agree. That is why we are pursuing our proposals to have a better interface between schools and colleges and our skills for work agenda. Last autumn, a number of seminars were held in an effort to devise courses that would allow young people in secondary 3 and secondary 4 to develop practical, experiential and vocational skills. That work has been progressed by the Scottish Qualifications Authority in conjunction with Learning and Teaching Scotland, the Scottish Further Education Unit, the Executive and relevant stakeholders.
Will the minister give way?
I have just taken an intervention, so I will carry on; I might come back to the member.
It is important that the investment that we are making in individual learning accounts is acknowledged. The revised ILA Scotland allows unemployed people free access to £200-worth of learning. The re-engineered national training for work programme, which is for people who are not in work, is being developed successfully by both enterprise networks. In addition, learndirect Scotland is working at a local level with the excluded, believing rightly that getting people into learning is often just the first step in their gaining confidence and ambition to do more. That approach is crucial to realising the potential of our people and communities and it will reap considerable rewards through supporting robust and sustainable economic growth over time. We know that it is no good providing learning opportunities if people do not know where to turn for advice and information, not least about financial and other types of support. That is why learndirect Scotland acts as a first point of contact for learners.
It is difficult to disagree with the notion that we should be investing in skills to get people into work. However, with regard to people who are already in work, I understand that, in December, those who work at the research facility in Ardtoe sought, in a letter to the minister, support of £200,000 a year, which they calculated was necessary for the institution to survive. They have not received a formal response, although I understand that the minister will meet me and the workforce. Will he ask his civil servants to re-examine the issue, so that the skills that are involved in vital research can be preserved in that remote and rural part of Scotland, where the jobs are highly skilled and there are no alternatives for the people who work there, two of whom have been recruited from South Africa and Canada respectively in the past few weeks?
I can allow additional time to let you absorb that, minister.
I am grateful to Fergus Ewing for raising that point. I am aware that my colleague Ross Finnie has had discussions recently with Sir John Arbuthnott on that issue and I continue to have discussions on the matter. I am not sure whether Fergus Ewing has formally sought a meeting with me, but I will see what can be done to facilitate one at an appropriate juncture.
The skills of our people are a defining characteristic and undeniable strength of this country, as is reflected in the world-class reputation of our universities and colleges, in the innovative and cutting-edge work of many of our businesses and in the decisions that companies have made. I note in particular the many recent occasions when we have welcomed examples of significant inward investment into Scotland, such as by Amazon, by Dell, by Huntswood and, as Stirling Medical Innovations, by Inverness Medical Innovations. Those companies have stated the importance of the skills and quality of the workforce that they find here. They are investing millions in establishing new operations in Scotland. Indeed the International Institute for Management Development "World Competitiveness Yearbook", which is regularly quoted, ranks highly Scotland's economic performance on the labour market, inflation and the export of goods and services. Moreover, the skills of our people are an important reason why Scotland was recognised last year as the European region of the future by a group of independent international direct investment experts.
Although the messages that we receive are encouraging, further skills development is vital for our current and future economic health. I assure the chamber that we will continue to invest where we see skills needs. I recognise that we must have a range of initiatives to satisfy the different needs of young people, employers, people who are in work and people who are out of work. However, those initiatives are underpinned by the central importance of lifelong learning. That is the way to effective, continuing skills improvement. That is how we will achieve the goals of our lifelong learning strategy and it is how we will continue to meet the skills needs of everyone in Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament acknowledges the importance of a policy of effective skills improvement and the contribution it can make to Scotland's prosperity; supports the objectives of the Scottish Executive's lifelong learning strategy which has helped raise the skill levels of Scotland's current workforce and increased the potential for future skills improvement; recognises that the sustained success of the Modern Apprenticeship scheme and record investment in Scotland's colleges have contributed significantly to improved skill levels; welcomes the Executive's commitment to improving adult literacy and numeracy rates and to better preparing Scotland's young people for the world of work through enterprise education and greater vocational learning opportunities, and believes that a continued focus on skills can help maintain Scotland's position as European Region of the Future.
We in the SNP will support any initiative that adds value and improves skills and Scotland's ability to compete. Personally, as a Scot, as a taxpayer and as the father of two bright, well-qualified twentysomethings, I am keen to see the Government's skills strategy work. However, in itself, the strategy is not enough. That view is well known.
In addition, the strategy is being undermined by the way in which the Scottish Government creates—perhaps inadvertently—local scepticism throughout the country, as people see glaring gaps between the rhetoric of "A Smart, Successful Scotland" and the practical implementation of policy on the ground. First, we have the prospect of a second round of job cuts removing a further 20 teaching posts at Inverness College. That provides yet another reason for local young people to leave the area, even before they gain a qualification. Secondly, we have the uncertainty about the role of and funding for the Hannah Research Institute, which we will debate this evening. Thirdly, as Fergus Ewing mentioned, we have the proposed closure of the research facility at Ardtoe, which will further hamper the potential of the Highlands and Islands to play a full and powerful role in the knowledge economy.
Nevertheless, like the Government of Scotland, we accept that there is a proven link between research and development, skills expenditure and economic growth. That is supported by those members who read and understand endogenous growth theory, one of the key components of which is the truism that investment in human capital and in the education and training of the workforce is an essential ingredient of growth. However, our Scottish problem is that, although we invest reasonably well, we are not good at retaining qualified people and, compared to elsewhere, we cannot get enough of them to complete their training.
There is a hole in the Scottish economic bucket, which is allowing skills acquired and funded in Scotland to leave to benefit other local and national economies. There is evidence of that in yesterday's The Scotsman, which reported that, according to a survey, one in four of our construction students plans to leave Scotland. What must we do about that? We need to achieve much higher completion rates for university courses and modern apprenticeships and much higher retention rates for graduates and people who are aiming for journeyman status.
Retention is a great concern to me. It should be the subject of improved research and reporting, based on concrete and accurate data. We have data on participation and completion, but we do not have data on additions and retention and on the residual numbers that are staying here in Scotland. I am sure that I am not alone in my dissatisfaction with the lack of short-term data, when the long-term view—the forecast reduction in people of working age in Scotland in the years to come—is so stark. The net migration numbers do not tell the full story, because the reported figures aggregate young people leaving Scotland and older and retired people coming to Scotland.
The bottom line is that, like any aspirant nation, Scotland needs to do more to help its young people to achieve higher skills and greater confidence. We need to create a proposition that makes it compelling for those people to stay in Scotland. To do that in the short term, we need to boost the confidence of employers. Anyone who has been an employer or who has talked to employers will be aware of their understandable concerns that spending on staff skills can create the risk of losing skilled staff, especially if other employers are not making similar commitments.
We therefore welcome the Executive's financial support to encourage more training, although that support can be undermined by the increasing concern about the risk implicit in Scotland that people are liable to move to faster-growing and more rewarding economies. If we are really to convince employers that they should be serious about training and retention, it is incumbent on Government to prove that it is serious about growing the economy and about retention. That is where we hit a problem, because the Government can never prove that until it has the full range of powers to compete. Happily, that is obvious to anyone who examines the facts.
Does the member accept that, in the unlikely event of Scotland becoming independent, the uncertainty that that would create would probably be the biggest blow to business confidence and stability that one could wish to see?
We watch the "uncertainty" of the accession states with admiration. We look at their growth of 6 per cent against our 1.8 per cent and salivate at the prospect of joining them. It is obvious to anyone, with the exception of Robert Brown, that new powers would produce the desired outcome. Primarily, that requires Government to create the conditions that will foster a competitive, growing economy and that will open up rewarding roles and opportunities for newly skilled people. Scotland can ensure that that happens, but we could also benefit in the short term from taking some simple, prosaic, practical steps—as in the case of modern apprenticeships—and from providing a recognised and valued national diploma. Such a diploma would mean that the agencies, colleges and businessmen would go the extra mile to create real value and to persuade youngsters that the qualification had real value.
On the positive front, I welcome today's announcements about unemployed and older people. I met some wise first-year kids in Oban High School a week ago, who told me that they wanted more people to be provided with the means of a second chance. If today's announcements are a second chance, the SNP welcomes them. Beyond that, there is a second chance for Government. Jean-Philippe Cotis, the chief economist at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, was right when he said:
"At the end of the day, being unable to converge"—
on other, better-performing economies—
"is nothing other than losing the capacity to learn from others and their successes."
The minister is right to suggest that the key driver is competitiveness and to point out that the IMD is obligingly keeping our international scorecard. However, it is the Government's duty, in line with the words of Mr Cotis, systematically to improve our current poor rating. That is vital to winning and retaining investment in jobs. Surely we should be embarking on a transparent and open-ended process of evaluating how we will move forward in line with Mr Cotis's advice.
As for convergence, if it comes to the question of whom we should converge on, I suggest Quebec. We should focus on its version of the First Minister's fresh talent initiative. Quebec starts from a stronger base. It has nine international offices, does roadshows in target countries and co-operates and competes with other Canadian provinces. It has a clear focus on the industries and professions that it wants to support and to which it wants to attract people and is targeting people with all the mechanisms that one could possibly think of.
Will Jim Mather give way?
I am in my last minute, so I am afraid that I cannot give way.
In addition, Quebec has a fast-track system for those who are going to make a significant investment. More important, it is using its fiscal system to make its policies work better by giving two-year tax holidays to those who come to carry out research and development and to returning Canadians and Quebecers. On top of that, it is taking the significant step of being competitive with all its neighbouring provinces and all the states in the United States.
The net effect is that Quebec has a running rate of 40,000 people a year returning to the province compared to our so-called ambitious target of 8,000 per annum. The Government Actuary's Department is now telling us that that target is even more vital because, by 2073, the working population in Scotland will drop by 1.13 million people, which is 35.8 per cent of the current workforce. We are not doing enough. We need to do more.
I move amendment S2M-2694.1, to leave out from "which has helped" to end and insert:
"and encourages the Executive to embark on a twofold strategy of radically improving the competitiveness of Scotland as recorded annually by IMD of Switzerland and increasingly matching the ability of other parts of the developed world to retain and attract skilled people and the type of investment that capitalises on existing skills and develops yet more skills here in Scotland."
I appreciate that there is an election campaign going on and that, with a 13 per cent poll rating, the SNP has to work hard to try to get its message across, but I will try to drag the debate away from constitutional arrangements and back to skills, which is what we should be discussing.
I agree with a lot of what the Deputy First Minister had to say in his opening speech. To have a successful economy, we need a well-trained and skilled workforce. The Conservatives certainly agree with the opening part of the Executive's motion, which underlines
"the importance of a policy of effective skills improvement".
We can all agree that a more skilled, better-trained workforce could increase productivity and business revenue. The Sector Skills Development Agency has found that, if we trained up just another 1 per cent of the current UK workforce, we could add £8 billion to gross domestic product. That would be a prize worth having.
Many of the Executive's best policies on skills are, of course, Conservative ones. It was the Conservatives who launched the modern apprenticeship scheme, the sustained success of which is referred to in the Executive's motion. There are now more than 30,000 people in modern apprenticeship initiatives, which we fully support. The Conservatives also introduced other measures, such as the young enterprise initiative.
Will Murdo Fraser give way?
I am always reluctant to give way to Mr Stevenson, because he goes off at rather obscure tangents, which are no doubt based on his previous night's reading of the "Encyclopaedia Britannica". However, in the interests of debate, I will give way.
Murdo Fraser will be delighted to know that I have been reading Conservative policy—there is no limit to my masochism. On 29 March, David Davis said at Tory headquarters:
"we will introduce legislation to require employers to put down bonds, equivalent to six month's remuneration, which will only be repayable once the permit holder has left."
That applies to the 13,000 students from outside the European Union, who we hope will stay in Scotland to contribute to our economy. If David Davis and the Tories ever had the opportunity to introduce that legislation—heaven help us—employers would be required to put down £117 million. Would that be good value for money and would it be likely to help us?
The Scottish nationalists might believe in a free-for-all immigration policy, but the Conservatives believe in controlled immigration, which requires controls. The SNP should be a little bit more honest and admit whether it wants controlled or uncontrolled immigration; I am not entirely sure what its policy is.
Let me return to the subject of this afternoon's debate. The "Skills in Scotland 2004" report, which was published in January, sets out the results of Futureskills Scotland's latest employer skills survey, which is drawn from interviews with more than 7,500 employers and provides information about skills shortages, skills gaps, recruitment and training activity in Scotland. The report discloses that 25 per cent of vacancies in 2004 were related to skills shortages and most hard-to-fill vacancies were hard to fill because of a shortage of the required skills. That is a major issue for the construction industry in particular; when we drill down further, we find that employers in the engineering sector are the most likely to report skills gaps. There is much to be done.
The report also says that basic literacy and numeracy skills are a major issue. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that employers are concerned that school leavers lack the basic ability to read, write and add up to a reasonable standard. The poor performance indicators for 14-year-olds in our schools seem to bear out the anecdotal evidence.
Not just basic skills are lacking. Many employers emphasise soft skills such as planning and organising, problem solving, customer handling, team working and communication. We all want a well-educated and capable workforce, but we also need a set of new employees to leave school annually equipped for the workforce and with the work ethos that employers look for. Between 40 and 50 per cent of employers that have recruited school leavers report that they do not consider them to be well prepared for work, so there is much to do.
Key to improving the skills base is the further education sector. Next week, the Parliament will debate stage 3 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill, which will merge the further and higher education funding councils. I am particularly keen for the bill to progress, not least because it will ensure parity of esteem between higher education and further education. I was interested that the Executive lodged this week an amendment that proposes the introduction of a statutory skills committee, which I would support, not least because it would provide the necessary balance between the two sectors in the new funding council. We should not forget that a Conservative Government incorporated the further education colleges, which freed them from local authority control and set them on their current path of expansion and success.
Our amendment refers to school-college partnerships. The partnerships that have been tried—several programmes exist—have been extremely successful in providing youngsters with an alternative to school-based education post-14.
One way in which that initiative will succeed is through the further development of community schools, which can open after normal school hours for use by local communities, businesses and others. Does the member regret the Conservative party's policy of stopping the development of community schools?
We have no such policy. Moreover, we want schools to be given greater freedom. Perhaps there is an argument for schools to emulate further education colleges in being freed from local authority control and being able to develop their own paths.
We have championed for some time the development of school-college partnerships. We know all about the dangers of having young people in the classroom who are not particularly interested in academic work. The current horrendous figures on truancy and school indiscipline bear that out. If we can give all youngsters the opportunity to access vocational training in FE colleges, that will be better for all pupils. The more academic pupils can get on in school and those who are more interested in a vocational route to a career can pursue that, which will improve their employability.
We should not tell our youngsters that they must go on to highers or to university and that, if they do not, they will somehow be failures. Going straight into work or into further education is as valuable a career route. We have succeeded in raising the number of young people who enter university and I am proud of the previous Conservative Government's record on that, but we also need people who are educated to sub-degree level, particularly in technical subjects, to fill some of the skills gaps in our economy to which I referred.
I was interested to see in information from the Equal Opportunities Commission in Scotland that 5 per cent of young people have careers advice from careers advisers and that 63 per cent have careers advice from their mums. That says something about parents—particularly those who did not go to university—having expectations about their young people, wanting them to go on to higher education and perhaps having a slightly different perspective. Sometimes, it might be in young people's best interests not to go to university, not least because graduates now leave with high levels of debt.
I agree that it is essential to have a well-trained workforce if we are to turn around our relative economic decline. I also agree that we need a more business-friendly environment across the piece. Our further education colleges supply the foundations for the necessary training and skills not only for our young people, but for those who are older and who are part of the workforce.
We should expand the existing school-college partnerships and provide greater opportunities for those who are in school. We should place greater emphasis on basic literacy and numeracy skills and on soft skills, such as communication, to meet our employers' needs. Together, those measures should ensure that future surveys of employers present a more encouraging picture on the problem of skills gaps.
I take pleasure in moving amendment S2M-2694.2, to leave out from "supports" to end and insert:
"notes the success of the Modern Apprenticeship scheme initiated in the mid-1990s by a Conservative government which has trained over 75,000 people in Scotland and which is currently providing skills training for over 31,000; notes with disappointment figures from the Futureskills Scotland 2004 report which show that 29% of applicants to skill shortage posts lacked basic literacy skills and 24% lacked basic numeracy skills; notes with concern findings from the same report that between 40 and 50% of employers who have recruited school leavers report that they are not well-prepared for work, and calls for more effective school-college partnerships with a view to improving the skills base of the economy."
I remind members of my declared interests as a board member of Community Enterprise in Strathclyde and as chair of the Scottish Library and Information Council, both of which are dedicated to improving access to skills and to growing employment out of skilled individuals. I, too, congratulate the minister on lodging the amendment to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill on the establishment of a statutory skills committee and hope that members will support that essential amendment in order clearly to tie business to the future of the economy and not to leave training, development and education to the educators.
I do not know how many members have been listening to this year's Reith lectures, which have been given by the president of the Royal Academy of Engineering, Lord Broers. In last night's lecture, which came from the University of Cambridge's department of engineering, Lord Broers argued that the days of the individual inventor are over. He described how innovation and technological development could be described as
"established capabilities, combined in new ways"
and stressed the need for collaboration in order to continue the development that is necessary to take forward the economy. He outlined how, in order to be able to use those established capabilities in new ways, a sound grasp of the principles underlying the technology is essential.
Members might be wondering how that is relevant to today's debate, but Lord Broers went on to tell his audience that it took the skills of 10 people to progress the work of one scientist or inventor. He made it clear that a six-month delay in introducing a technological change could reduce the profit from the new technology by 50 per cent. If ever there was an argument that supports what the Labour-led coalition in Scotland and the Labour Government in the United Kingdom are doing to develop skills and to emphasise skills development, that is it. Lord Broers was talking about the higher end—the cutting edge—but what he said applies to every walk of life and to every business, including public sector businesses.
I apologise to the minister for not being in the chamber at the beginning of his speech, but I did hear him describe what the Executive has done to progress the skills agenda. We know that for the smart, successful Scotland strategy to be successful, we must improve skills development.
On Tuesday, during its first evidence session in its inquiry into business growth, the Enterprise and Culture Committee, which is convened by my colleague Alex Neil, heard from Professor Donald MacRae of Lloyds TSB Scotland about how Scotland is in the first quartile of 15 comparator Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries in respect of the percentage of people in employment who are in training. I will, to be fair, return to that if I have enough time because he also highlighted areas in the economy in which we do not do so well. We must find out whether what we have done with skills and our success with skills development can be applied in other areas.
The minister mentioned sector skills alliances and sector skills development and Murdo Fraser talked about skills shortages in various areas. I will briefly tell members about the broad range of areas in which sector skills alliances and sector skills councils are developing training and capacity in the economy. I will not go through the full range of work that is being done or the whole list, but it includes housing, construction, the gas industry—in Glasgow, there is a scheme for lone parents to address skills shortages—working with pupils in schools, land-based industries, logistics, television and the media, the voluntary sector, hospitality, leisure and tourism.
Sector Skills Alliance Scotland—which is represented in the gallery—is promoting a collaborative project to increase workplace learning, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises and microbusinesses. Those businesses most frequently tell ministers and members that they have difficulties in finding time and capacity for training. At the end of this month, 150-plus sector skills council folk and employers will gather in Parliament to tell MSPs about what they are doing. I hope that many folk will be there.
I turn to what is being done in the colleges in Fife. Glenrothes, Fife, Elmwood and Lauder colleges all work individually and collaboratively to increase the skills of my constituents. I draw members' attention to a publication that arrived on my desk yesterday. In it, members can find details of an innovative scheme that Lauder College is promoting in Methil, where there has been huge success with the new deal and the getting ready for work schemes. The Methil scheme ensures that people who have had difficulty in dealing with their chaotic lifestyles or deprivation can get back into work.
What do I want the Executive to do? We need to be clear about how we will monitor what works, what arrangements are in place and how they can be strengthened. How will we arrange stopping doing what clearly does not work so that we can make the necessary changes? How can we disseminate good practice? Most important, how can we generate hunger for learning and development among employers and communities that are currently not able to demonstrate it or which are not demonstrating it? I do not have a plethora of employers beating a path to my door saying, "We want to innovate, but we can't." I need to see that; I suggest that we all need to see that. I hope that over the course of this Administration, the Executive will develop such methods of monitoring, and that the economy will continue to grow.
Today's is a timely debate because the subject affects everything that happens in Scotland. Our success or failure in the matter will determine the long-term future of everyone in our country. In the absence of targets for what we are trying to achieve in our economy, it is kind of difficult to know whether we will succeed. There is an old saying: "If you don't know where you're going, you won't know whether you've got there."
The kind of targets that I and my colleagues on the SNP benches wish to see for Scotland's economy are distinctly different from those that are hinted at and suggested from the shadows by members on the Government benches. We need targets for economic activity in Scotland that exceed those for the rest of the United Kingdom in order that we can make progress because we have been underperforming relative to the rest of the United Kingdom for a number of years—we could argue about how many years.
However, targets are not the issue; delivery on targets is. We must also not be afraid of being a confident country—or of being the best small country in the world, as someone who occasionally sits on the Executive benches says—that competes within the settlement that we have currently with the other countries and areas of the United Kingdom. Competition in that context is the sin whose name must not be spoken too often, but it is time that we heard it.
I keep returning to an astonishing experience that I had when I suggested in committee that we should allow councils to set planning fees for themselves instead of telling them what they should charge. I was telt by a minister, "Oh, but we can't have competition." That attitude permeates too much of the Executive's thinking.
I turn to some of what the First Minister said today at question time. He suggested, if I heard him correctly—I think the figures sustain this—that 87 per cent of Scots graduates who take up employment do so in Scotland. That is good; the figure is higher than it has been for some time. Let us be fair and say that some progress is being made. It might also be interesting to know how long those graduates stay; to know—of the 13 per cent who are currently not taking up employment in Scotland—how many come back; and to know how many foreign people we manage to retain in Scotland. There are some numbers for that and they are modestly encouraging.
Of course, as I suggested when I intervened during Murdo Fraser's speech, it is clear that the Tories' policies would be absolutely disastrous. I do not think that the business community has quite caught up with the fact that the Tories would require any company that employs someone who has a work permit to put up half of that person's annual salary if they want to keep the person on board. If that policy were implemented, I estimate—based on the number of work permits in my constituency—that the cost to businesses in Banff and Buchan alone, which is only one of 73 constituencies, would be in excess of £1 million.
Furthermore, in relation to people who are seeking their first job, if an employer has a choice between putting up half a year's salary, which is about £9,000, given that the average graduate starting wage is £18,000, to employ someone who needs a work permit, such as a highly skilled person who came from China to study in our country—currently, just under 1,700 students from China, many of them excellent, do so—or employing someone for whom that sum need not be put up or leaving the position vacant, I think I know what the employer will do.
As members would expect, I have been looking at less obscure sources of information than the Tory party website and from those sources I see that the category of occupation that has the highest number of employees who receive training is personal services occupations, in which the figure is 50 per cent. I also see that the training rate—that is, the percentage of employees who receive any sort of training—is 43 per cent. That is all well and good, but it means that more than half of our employees are not getting in-service training. We have to consider ways of increasing that figure substantially.
In the Scottish Enterprise Grampian area, which includes the area that I represent, 24 per cent of companies expect to have recruitment problems, which is largely due to the fact that there is an inadequate skills base upon which they can draw.
I am worried about the drop in the proportion of people who are going into training and I am also concerned about something that I have been told—but have not yet confirmed—which is that colleges are having to deal with the funds that they are given in a new way, in that they must make an operating surplus to pay off capital debt and that much of the new money that they are getting is hypothecated.
There is little doubt in my mind and in the minds of my colleagues that we could do better if we had more powers. The challenge for the Government benches is to show that, with the powers that we have, we can do better than the rest of the United Kingdom. That is at best not proven, but I think the jury votes guilty.
I want to talk about some matters that have not generally been touched on. The first is gender stereotypes and how they contribute to skills shortages and the second is the responsiveness of colleges to skills shortages.
In Scotland, the construction industry employs approximately 110,000 people, but we know that there are skills shortages in that area. Furthermore, we know that skills shortages account for 60 per cent of the vacancies in the construction industry, which is a large proportion. In general building, painting and decorating and roofing the shortages are pronounced.
From visiting Denmark and other Scandinavian countries, I know that gender stereotyping has been tackled in ways that have helped to resolve the problems of skills shortages.
Will the member give way?
I will finish making my point before Mr Brown asks me about it.
It is quite plain that, in Scandinavia, there was a gender stereotype—which is also prevalent in Scotland—that meant that people who were employed as decorators tended to be male and that females tended not to apply to become painters and decorators. People who phoned for quotes and estimates for work would find when the workers arrived that they were, on the whole, male. Efforts were made in Denmark to change that and to encourage women to enter the painting and decorating business. Work was also done in schools to encourage women to take courses in painting and decorating and it was found that the small number of women who went into decorating were suddenly sought by clients who wished to employ decorators. The social experience was that decorators were employed and contracted mostly by women, who felt particularly comfortable that the people who were in their homes with them were other women. Employers of decorators found that recruiting more women brought them more business, so there was a market imperative to train and recruit more women.
Gradually, but quite quickly, the gender stereotype in the construction industry, starting with painting and decorating but moving into other areas such as plumbing, was broken down. Employers recognised that having women working in those trades was important to their attracting business, and colleges recognised that their training of women built up stronger relationships with employers and ensured that they had students coming through their doors. It is not a matter of Government initiatives; we must recognise that we can all benefit from changing our stereotypical views.
I accept Brian Monteith's remarks on gender. Does he agree that the continuing failure to address the problem of ageism is a contributory factor in skills shortages? Forty per cent of people between the ages of 60 and 65 are unemployed, and a high percentage of them are skilled people.
I have no difficulty in accepting that point. That is another stereotype that needs to be tackled. I recognise that many businesses have learned that employing older people makes good business sense, given not just their skills but their experience of dealing with people.
We can see from the example that I have given that we need a response to tackle such stereotypes. That leads me to my second point, which is on the responsiveness of colleges and their ability to address the problem. As Murdo Fraser said, it was the Conservatives who incorporated our FE colleges. I hear no one these days talking about going backwards and taking colleges back to local authority management. That is important, because incorporation of colleges has ensured that they are more responsive to the needs of employers and potential employees. It is no surprise that the record of colleges since 1995-96 shows that productivity has improved by some 33 per cent. Were we to have such productivity gains in other sectors of public services, we would have to deal with and debate in Parliament far fewer problems in the health service and in local authorities. We can learn from the incorporation of colleges and from their independence.
Murdo Fraser's amendment calls for
"more effective school-college partnerships".
We argue that such partnerships can be improved far more readily by liberating schools from local authorities and by giving them more independence, as is enjoyed by FE colleges. That would enable schools to build up partnerships that are of particular benefit to their pupils—the potential students of FE colleges—rather than their being centrally directed. I support Murdo Fraser's amendment. The liberation of schools and colleges will ensure an adequate response to the skills shortages in our economy.
One of the pleasures of such debates is that we occasionally hear unexpected speeches, such as the first half of Brian Monteith's speech in which he highlighted gender stereotyping. I largely agree with him that there is too much gender stereotyping of skills and that the issue needs to be addressed in Executive policies.
A recent study by Ailsa McKay and her colleagues at Glasgow Caledonian University shows that the modern apprenticeships system has operated in a gender-stereotyped way, with males tending to congregate in the construction sector and females tending to be concentrated in the caring occupations. If such a process takes place when people are in training, it will obviously carry through to their entering work. The study found that wage levels were a key driving factor. Fundamentally, the lower wage levels that were available for child care and other types of caring occupation were accepted by females but not by males when they entered training. If we are to address that issue, it seems to me that we will need to increase wage levels in the caring occupations in order to create a level playing field in respect of gender and greater parity of esteem and reward for those occupations. I believe that such a move would be widely welcomed.
I hear with interest the member's comments on wage levels. It strikes me that the solution that he offers might move males into the stereotypically female areas of work in which higher levels of salary might be made available, but how would it move females into stereotypically male areas of work, in which wage levels are already higher?
There are different barriers, but wage levels are certainly a barrier to getting young men into traditionally or stereotypically female areas of work.
Does the member agree that the gender imbalance to which he referred in the modern apprenticeships scheme largely reflects the situation in the wider labour market? Does he agree that the best way to make inroads into the problem would be to increase overall female participation in the MA scheme?
That would be helpful. We also need to think through what kinds of provisions might be made within the scheme to remove existing gender barriers and gender boundaries.
On a different subject, the Futureskills Scotland report "Skills in Scotland 2004" suggests, in a most comprehensive analysis of the issue, that the Scottish workforce has relatively few identifiable skills shortages and is relatively well educated and well trained. In many ways, therefore, how we use our skilled people is more important than how we provide them with skills. It is all too easy to think simply about the supply side of the workforce without thinking about how we bring together people and employment. To pick up on Jim Mather's point, whether skilled people are retained in Scotland depends on whether they can find appropriate jobs here that they want to do. When we lose highly skilled people, it is because they cannot find appropriate employment in Scotland. I believe that the issue is about economic co-ordination and development rather than about the constitution. It is a collective problem that we must all face and address.
Will the member give way?
Let me finish this point.
Another thing that is noticeable in the Futureskills Scotland report is that employment shortages and vacancy rates are highest in jobs that require lower levels of skills and qualifications. Those are the jobs for which employers report problems in recruiting people.
One point that is coming across is that the issues that are seen as being those that most require to be addressed are ones about how people develop core skills such as team working, numeracy, writing skills, oral communication, customer handling and problem solving. Many of those would not most appropriately be dealt with in skills development at further and higher education level, but need to be addressed lower down at nursery level and in primary and secondary education. We need to be much more up front about how we deal with those matters and we must consider resourcing them properly.
As someone who worked in a university for more than 20 years, I am proud of how universities have increased the level of participation and involvement, and the number qualifications that people can now get. However, many universities—particularly the older universities—have been inflexible in going about that. Their approach has been to give everybody a four-year degree, whereas what many people need is mixed modes of attendance, flexible qualifications and the opportunity to develop skills in shorter periods of time. We congratulate ourselves too often in those sectors and we fail to be flexible and forward thinking in responding to what people require. There is much to be done on skills: we must identify the problems and work towards the right solutions.
Earlier this week I showed a couple from Thailand around the Parliament building. During their visit they asked about upcoming debates. When I said that there would be one on skills in Scotland they pointed out that the Thai Government has made education and—as they called it—re-education, a top priority. That demonstrates the importance to Scotland of not only training our workforce but continually re-training and updating skills. That is what our competitors are doing.
Christine May referred to Professor Donald MacRae's presentation to the Enterprise and Culture Committee earlier this week. He pointed out that the various initiatives that are promoted by the Executive to improve our skills base are working and that we are outperforming many other OECD countries. He also said that another benchmark of the success of education and training in Scotland is that we have the second lowest level of unemployment to Denmark.
Jim Wallace, the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, gave us a comprehensive overview of all the current initiatives. I noticed that Murdo Fraser claimed credit for all of those—if he had been given another minute he would have claimed credit for the poll tax. Mr Fraser and Mr Monteith both mentioned the move of colleges from the control of local authorities to independence, but neither mentioned that when that happened there was no co-ordination on educational targets. As Christine May pointed out, only now is there forward thinking and forward plans for various work sectors.
That brings us on to the important issue that Des McNulty raised: the linkages between education and jobs. Many students have gone through courses and have been disappointed to find that the jobs that they would like do not exist. Unless we get the linkages right, that will continue to be the case.
I will concentrate on vocational education and training because I believe that insufficient support and direction had been given to the sector until recently. The pendulum had swung too heavily in favour of book knowledge and away from physical skills and dexterity. That is why I welcome the increasing number of young people who are moving into the modern apprenticeships scheme, which represents a traditional system of learning being brought up to date with the appropriate level of knowledge being gained from textbooks.
I also welcome the scheme that allows youngsters who have superior practical abilities to move into colleges where those attributes can be harnessed and improved in trades and professions in which dexterity and physical ability are rewarded.
Those are my views on basic education. I will move on to what my Thai friends referred to as "re-education". Skills require constant polishing and nourishing. I know myself that although many of the principles that I learned decades ago in agriculture are still there, my rudimentary physical skills in farming will come back into use only if the Greens have their way and abolish modern farming and take us back to simple tilling of the land with hoes and hand-pulled ploughs. I also know that the journalistic skills that I have developed over the past 15 years will slip away quickly if they are not constantly revised and utilised. That shows why it is important that the whole Scottish nation realise that one education is not sufficient. The mantra throughout the country must be "lifelong learning".
If we do not continually hone and refine our skills base in order to cope with, and be competitive in, future, that future will be dim.
I support the Executive motion.
First, I take issue with the motion's self-congratulatory tone. Futureskills Scotland has published an interesting comparison between Scottish and English employers in the light of their respective 2004 skills surveys, which shows that although both countries have skills shortages and gaps the situation is marginally worse in Scotland. There is little evidence that Scottish solutions have been found for Scottish problems, and yet more evidence of a lack of competitive edge to the Scottish economy when compared with our nearest neighbours.
As Murdo Fraser pointed out, 25 per cent of all vacancies in Scotland are hard to fill because of skills shortages. In addition, almost 10 per cent of all employees are judged by their employers to lack proficiency in their work, with more than one in five workplaces being affected by such skills gaps. I take issue with Des McNulty's claim that those weaknesses are not significant.
It has been mentioned that the most common skills that are lacking are soft skills such as oral communication, customer handling and problem solving, and skills gaps are most common in jobs that require lower levels of skills and qualifications. That places a question mark over basic education levels and standards.
I am concerned most of all by the fact that all the figures that I have quoted indicate a worsening rather than improving trend. The same goes for the number of employers who are not offering some kind of training to employees. In 2004, 36 per cent of employers did not offer any training, compared with 32 per cent in 2003. Last May, the then Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning acknowledged that, according to a Confederation of British Industry survey, Scottish businesses invested less in training than did those in any other part of the UK. The minister promised progress, but we are getting the opposite; I invite him either to admit to Parliament the failure of the Executive's skills improvement policies and the need for a new approach or to explain how more of the same will produce the goods in the foreseeable future.
Any approach to improving our skills base clearly needs to engage with business to bring about a culture change among what appears to be a growing proportion of the business community that regards deskilling with equanimity. The effort that is required to raise skill levels could be seriously devalued if, at the end of the day, jobs are not available that are relevant to those skills.
I see little or nothing coming from the unionist parties to address such issues. Of course, they are content to operate with one hand tied behind their backs in managing the Scottish economy, much to its continuing detriment. That said, the Executive could and should do much more to stimulate upskilling in the public services and a consequent uprating of pay, thereby setting an appropriate example.
The caring services in particular have been mentioned. They deserve much more investment in human capital across the board, from home care and residential care of the elderly to foster care and nursing care of children. Such an effort would also represent a direct method of attacking low pay, particularly for women.
As a former member of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee in the previous session, I express my disappointment at the Executive's failure to pick up and run with the main recommendation of the committee's inquiry into lifelong learning, which was to create a unified system that would empower the individual, from whatever background, to access training and educational opportunities in pursuit of personal development. Why can those learners who enter higher education count on support for their learning as an entitlement while other post-school learners cannot? The committee recommended that everyone should be entitled to the equivalent of six years of study, which could be used at any level and at any time in their life. That would be a simple mechanism to make lifelong learning an accessible and practical choice for people. Why have ministers rejected that Scottish solution to a Scottish problem? At the time, it was welcomed across the political spectrum.
I am pleased to be taking part in this afternoon's debate—unlike SNP members. The SNP, it seems, is becoming day by day more irrelevant to the people of Scotland. It sees nothing good in anything that is proposed. I am pleased that young people in my constituency and throughout Scotland have the opportunity—because of the policies of the Labour Government and the Scottish Executive—to make a start in life or, in some cases, to make a new start in life.
Some members on the SNP side of the chamber seem to have forgotten what it was like in the past. Others will remember—it was not all that long ago—how difficult it was for young people to find a job. Parents were worried about what the future held for their children once they left formal education. For many of those children, there was very little hope of a job. Even young people with very good academic qualifications found it difficult. Apprenticeships were like gold, and companies that trained apprentices were few and far between.
Will the member take an intervention?
I would like to move on.
The level of youth unemployment was the most shameful aspect of life in Scotland during the 1980s and on into the mid-1990s. Unemployment can have a devastating effect on an individual at any age and can impact on their life in many ways. Without a job, money is scarce; without a job, there is hardly a reason to get up in the morning; and, without a job, it is easy for a young person to think that society does not care and that they have been thrown on the scrap heap. Eventually, self-respect and respect for others can be lost. Without skills—the subject that we are talking about this afternoon—it is difficult for someone to find employment and to get the respect that they want as a member of society.
Thankfully, things have improved since 1997. The economic stability and confidence that the Labour Government has generated have given hope. Training opportunities have been created. Working with businesses, universities, schools and colleges, many thousands of young people have benefited from the opportunities that Labour policies have created. Young people now have a greater chance of going on to further and higher education. The new deal and modern apprenticeship schemes have helped to slash youth unemployment. Since 1997, unemployment in my constituency has been slashed by 90 per cent, and something like 850 young people have benefited from the new deal. The Tories would put that at risk.
The Tories forget what the difficulties were. Their loss of memory is selective; they choose to forget the difficulties that young people endured while the party was in power. They also forget, when employers suggest that young people are leaving school without skills, that many of those young people were in primary school—the most formative years—when the Tories were in power.
Des McNulty was right to say that giving people skills is not just about giving them skills for a particular apprenticeship—or the skills to be an engineer or whatever—but about giving them skills for life. That can start in pre-school education—giving people the skills to communicate with one another and to learn. Sadly, we have to deal with problems in those areas among young people who are leaving school without the qualifications even to take on the challenges of learning a skill. Through partnership working with employers and, in particular, with colleges, we have been addressing that problem and taking away the stigma and shame that some families felt if their son or daughter was leaving school without the ability to move on to employment.
First, I congratulate Cathie Craigie on her 50th birthday today. I hope that, in the next 50 years, she will be more accurate when describing SNP policy than she has been in her first 50 years. I draw her attention to the record number, confirmed last week in a parliamentary answer to me, of 16 to 19-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training. That is a Labour record.
I thank Alex Neil for his contribution and his congratulations, but I am sorry to say that the SNP always gets its figures wrong. I am actually 51 today, but I am happy to accept his congratulations, because we are always trying to turn back the clock. If Alex Neil read about my birthday in The Scotsman, I remind him that he should not always believe what he reads in the newspaper.
We have moved away from what it was like in 1995-96, when people genuinely worried about their young people leaving school and when grandparents were worried about whether young people would get a job. The Scottish Executive is working in partnership with the Government at Westminster—the Scottish National Party would never do that—to ensure economic stability, which gives young people hope and opportunities. That is what we have, and we do not have people hanging about in the evenings unable to go to bed because they are not tired because they have not done a day's work. We are getting there. It will not be easy, but we have the right programme and the lifelong learning strategy. I am pleased that a forum has been set up to evaluate how programmes are working. We can always improve, but we are certainly going in the right direction.
I fully support the motion in Jim Wallace's name, and believe that the whole Parliament should support it tonight.
I would like to focus on two main areas: gender segregation and disability. I shall also mention briefly the need to build and transfer skills for green jobs.
I, too, recently received a copy of the Equal Opportunities Commission report on its investigations into workplace segregation of women and men. The commission's work was the first ever general formal investigation into occupational segregation, and specific research was conducted to reflect the position in Scotland. I am delighted that Brian Monteith recognises the benefits of tackling stereotyping, and I suggest that Andrew Arbuckle goes away and takes a few upskilling lessons in that area.
Occupational segregation has long been present in the labour market, and the report shows that it is still very much with us, particularly in manual trades and vocational occupations such as construction and child care. It is encouraging that occupational segregation seems to be much less prevalent in the professions, and girls are becoming more ambitious than boys in choosing higher education. However, the aims of the Executive's strategies on lifelong learning, skills and enterprise will not be met if action is not taken to promote non-traditional jobs and training and to remove the barriers that are currently found in vocational training.
I agree completely with the Equal Opportunities Commission when it says:
"The current challenges facing Scotland for skills deficits and increased productivity will not be met if we continue to stereotype jobs into those appropriate for either women or men."
As we all know, and as Des McNulty highlighted, many of the jobs that are stereotyped for women are also the least secure and most badly paid.
Another aspect is that a fifth of our population is disabled. The employment rate for disabled people is disproportionately low. Disabled people are twice as likely as non-disabled people are to be unemployed, and the current legislation in that area seems to be having only a modest impact. Training and skills improvement for disabled people must be simply and easily accessed and delivered in a more creative and flexible way that works for them.
I agree with the recommendations of a report by Inclusion Scotland, which calls for training to be made available
"as a direct means to accessing employment",
and for
"Closer links … between training providers and employers".
As a society, we must allow the full potential of disabled people to be realised, so we must give consideration to the matter in all policy areas, including the benefits and student loans systems, which disproportionately penalise the disabled. I urge the minister to ensure that the Executive does all that it can do to ensure that disabled people have the same chance of gaining and improving skills as anyone has.
The Equal Opportunities Committee's disability inquiry is finding that, too often, the real barriers to access to work are not individual disabilities but the barriers that employers present to a potentially loyal and skilled workforce. Perhaps the Executive needs to be reminded that fresh talent is available in Scotland, but that such talent needs more effective resourcing.
There is great potential for Scotland to become a world leader in sustainable green jobs if the right support is given to emerging Scottish industries, to allow them to mature. We must ensure that we have a well-skilled workforce for the transition from an inefficient, waste-oriented society to a more enlightened society that conserves resources while allowing a good standard of living for all. The building and transferring of skills for a more sustainable future must be a central part of the Executive's policy on skills.
I have quite a bit of time left—I expected to speak for about four minutes—so I draw members' attention to the lobby that was held today by a group of disabled people, which was entitled, "Use your loaf: scrap charging for community care!" I am not sure how many members know how disabled people are penalised, but I will read—
You have one minute left. Please speak to the subject on which you are supposed to be speaking.
My comments relate to skills. A student who is trying to update her skills says:
"Because I am charged for Community Care; I cannot save money, pay off my student overdraft, see the financial benefits of job promotions and higher paid jobs, invest money in my future, save for a pensions plan, buy luxury items that society assumes I could afford, or keep the same amount of money for my work as a non disabled person would in the same job."
She raises serious issues that we must address.
The debate has been characterised by very general comments. We have heard warm words about good intentions and high hopes and members of all parties have expressed sentiments with which I am sure that we can all agree without difficulty.
However, beyond the high-level debate, we should consider what is happening on the ground. I am pleased that the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning has returned to his seat, because although I acknowledge that, as the motion says, there has been increased investment in Scotland's colleges, I want to talk about the predicament of Inverness College in my constituency.
Some weeks ago, at the invitation of a trade union, I met lecturers at Inverness College to discuss its financial plight. The minister will be aware that for many years, as the result of past mismanagement, the college has had a deficit of more than £5 million. The rules say that the college must pay back the money and, as the minister knows, I have argued that that means that today's students and lecturers must pay the price of past mismanagement, much of which arose from the policy of incorporation and the way in which it was introduced by the Conservatives. Be that as it may, the first problem is that a £3 million deficit remains and a 10-year recovery plan means that the college is technically insolvent.
The second problem is that the rules have changed; I am told that by Professor John Little, whom I met last Friday. In a letter to me, Professor Little says that he was told that the college must make an operating surplus and that it must pay for depreciation. That is a change. It is an extra burden, the effect of which is that the college faces staff cuts right now. Inverness College also faces a drain on its resources: for every £1 that the college receives by way of higher education funding, it pays 44p to the UHI Millennium Institute. Professor Little told me that that is the case and the staff agree.
My question for the minister is simple. How can it be fair for the colleges that will become part of the University of the Highlands and Islands to also have to pay for their existing structures? We welcome the fact that the colleges are to be part of the embryonic University of the Highlands and Islands, for which—as the minister knows—we have campaigned for decades, but why does the burden of developing degree courses and all the preparatory work have to be borne by today's students and lecturers?
Tomorrow, I will meet Bob Cormack of UHI to discuss the matter further. I will also discuss the matter next Wednesday morning, when I meet Roger McGuire of the funding council. A point of principle is involved, and if Mr Purvis thinks that it is funny, I say to him that neither my constituents nor his minister agree with him.
I hope that, in closing, the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning or his deputy will explain how it can be right that colleges have to pay for the only university that Scotland is creating. We welcome the university. We hope that it will lead to opportunities, new businesses and possibilities that will, in turn, bring people back to the Highlands—that is what we all want. That said, the university's development costs seem to be funded substantially by the college.
Unlike some members, I do not call for extra funding for every pledge of the day—it is not my style to do that. It would be better if we were to spend far more time on looking at how the existing budget is spent. Last Friday, I was told that £2.3 million of Inverness College's budget will be spent on doing maintenance work on a building that the college hopes to vacate in four years' time. The college will have to spend all that money for health and safety reasons. I ask the minister to look into that situation, because it sounds pretty perverse and against everything that most people would see as common sense. I understand that some money may have to be spent, but spending £2.3 million on maintenance will mean 20 to 25 staff being dismissed and students losing the opportunity to pursue courses and other opportunities at a time when we are hearing fine sentiments and warm words on the creation of UHI, which we all agree is desirable.
An issue that relates to the lifelong learning strategy and retaining skills is the situation at Ardtoe. I believe that Ardtoe representatives met the Minister for Environment and Rural Development last Friday. The minister was asked for a funding package of £200,000 per annum, and I am told that Mr Finnie said no. If I am wrong in saying that, I am delighted to be wrong.
On Monday of this week, the boards of the Scottish Association for Marine Science met and decided to put Ardtoe into liquidation. The staff were not told about that decision and learned of it from a press release. Indeed, two of them were at a conference that Lewis Macdonald attended. They had to read out a press release to the conference saying that Ardtoe had been made bust. How can that be right? More important, how does it square with the warm words? How can it be right at the very time that Ardtoe, as part of SAMS, is to be part of the UHI that both the minister and I support and have always campaigned for? How can it be right that Ardtoe is axed for the sake of £200,000, a figure that is one tenth of the health and safety budget for Inverness College?
The issues are serious. Although I do not expect an immediate answer, I expect an answer and so do my constituents.
At this time, it is inevitable that political debate is focused on Scotland's future economic prosperity. Labour members welcome that debate, because we have succeeded in encouraging prosperity and creating record employment.
Economic growth is the Executive's top priority because, although we have achieved a great deal, there is no room for complacency, as significant challenges lie ahead. As we have heard, there are many opinions—some more informed than others—on how continued economic growth can best be achieved, but we all agree that Scotland cannot prosper or compete if it has a narrow, low-skill economy. That is why it is right that the Executive's strategy for skills is based on creating an enterprising culture and a knowledge economy.
The debate has rightly highlighted the success of the lifelong learning strategy, the skills fund, the investment in further and higher education and initiatives such as the modern apprenticeship scheme, all of which give people the skills that they need to succeed in the workplace. It is also right to consider other ways in which the Executive has sought to expand our skills base, such as the measures that it has taken to encourage skilled people from around the world to come to Scotland to live and work, which include the fresh talent initiative. As the Executive motion acknowledges, that work must be complemented by doing yet more to improve the range of skills that people who work here already possess.
Although Des McNulty was right to point out that in Scotland overall there are relatively few skills shortages, in my region of the north-east there are specific skills gaps in the local workforce—for example, in construction and in the oil and gas sector. In those fields, there is a lack not of excellent employment opportunities, but of people with the skills to take them up. We must address that situation, not only because in doing so we will encourage better growth in those sectors, but because in failing to do so we would lose an opportunity for our economy and for the people who could be trained to do those jobs.
We are well placed to succeed in taking on that challenge, given the Executive's record levels of investment in further and higher education and its lifelong learning strategy. We must remember that there has been a 23 per cent increase in investment. Addressing skills gaps should be a major part of the work of the new joint funding council for further and higher education. That is why I welcome the fact that the Executive has lodged amendments to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill to ensure that the council will establish a skills committee.
A range of agencies need to be involved in the task of ensuring that the right workforce skills are provided in every area of Scotland, but local colleges and universities are particularly well placed to work with local employers to identify and address skills gaps. I have seen evidence of that in the north-east, where Banff and Buchan College and the University of Aberdeen developed a new course to train teachers in technology, after it was found that local schools were experiencing great difficulty in recruiting technology teachers. Investment in tertiary education is vital to ensuring that we have future economic growth that is based on a knowledge economy and a skilled workforce.
As Christine May said, in the first evidence session of its inquiry into business growth, the Enterprise and Culture Committee had an excellent presentation from the economist Donald MacRae, in which he outlined some of the issues that we must tackle if we are to create stronger growth. He pointed out that, in an international context, Scotland is well ahead of the game in producing graduates and in investing in colleges and universities. He was right to suggest that we should have an even greater focus on earlier years education, as other members have indicated, but I counsel that there is no room for complacency about our levels of investment in tertiary education. In the future global economy in which we will compete, developing nations will have more and more graduates and ever-increasing levels of academic capital. We must respond to that prospect if we are to remain ahead of the game as a knowledge economy.
We will certainly not develop skills or our economy by abandoning already successful schemes, as the Tories would do under their proposal to scrap the new deal. Only nationalists could truly believe that constitutional reform is the key to economic prosperity and distort their economic arguments to fit that overarching, misguided goal.
Unlike the Tories, Labour invests in people rather than in unemployment. Our new commitment to create even more employment is a key part of our strategy for an economically successful Scotland. When we talk about increasing skills, that is not just about setting an economic target; it is about transforming people's lives. More than 30,000 people are being trained through the modern apprenticeship scheme. Those people are not just a statistic—each of them is being given new and better opportunities thanks to our focus on skills and jobs. The Executive has the right strategy to allow us to meet the challenge of giving even more people new skills and making Scotland an even more prosperous society in the years to come.
This has been an interesting and worthwhile debate, in which some good speeches have been made. Murdo Fraser and Brian Monteith in particular made good points. However, Murdo Fraser denied that the Conservatives have a policy to slash community schools. To echo the words of Richard Baker, I would have thought that throughout the chamber there was solid support for the idea that skills and training require investment in education. That view appears to be held by all with the exception of the Conservatives.
I have in my hand a document from the Scottish Conservatives that is interestingly called—perhaps one could quibble with the phraseology—"Value for Money" and subtitled "Lower Taxes". On the second page it has the Letwin guarantee. On the next page is a table with the heading "Income and Savings", which sets out the savings that will be made to fund tax cuts such as council tax cuts. Against "Community Schools programme", it lists £175 million, which appears to be a saving. In addition, under the heading "Expenditure and Tax Cuts", against "Council Tax cut/School funding", it lists £614 million. As I understand it, that funding will be taken from councils, because schools will be directly funded. However, I would have expected to see that figure on the other side of the table, to make up the difference through some sort of central Government funding, but that is not the case. There is no other figure of £614 million in the document. I can only take it that not only will the Conservatives slash the community schools programme, they will slash school funding generally by £614 million. I am interested to hear from the Conservatives on that point.
Our policy is perfectly clear. We are transferring the funding of education from councils to central Government budgets. We will pay for education through efficiency savings, which have already been identified by the Executive. There will be no cutting of education budgets.
I am interested in Mr Fraser's comment, but my only difficulty with it, even with my limited knowledge of accounting, is that the efficiency gains are spent elsewhere on tax cuts and various other items that the Conservatives hope to address with their budget. Unfortunately, it just does not add up.
Much capital—political and otherwise—has been invested in Scotland to ensure that our country is and remains a successful economy that pays its way in the world, creates wealth for its people and exceeds the efforts of its competitors. I think that it was Stewart Stevenson who made the valid point that we have to do better than the other parts of the United Kingdom.
Members throughout the chamber recognise that a successful economy requires certain basic ingredients. First, it requires a sustainable and prosperous home market, which in our case primarily is the European Union. Secondly, it requires stability, predictable interest rates and low inflation. A large factor in that is the independence of the monetary policy committee of the Bank of England, which was established by Gordon Brown in 1997. That measure was not in the Labour manifesto but was quite rightly taken from the Liberal Democrat manifesto.
A third ingredient is the spirit of enterprise among businesspeople and young people in particular. The approaches that have been taken in that area, such as the enterprise in schools agenda, the linking of enterprise and lifelong learning, the importance that is afforded to education, and the removal of barriers to education such as the Labour Government's tuition fees, represent some of the contributions that the Liberal Democrats have made to the Executive.
The last ingredient is skills—I should also mention research and development, but skills are the central focus of this debate. The skills agenda is central and represents a challenge and an opportunity.
We heard in Jim Wallace's speech and in the First Minister's comments at question time of Scotland's success in having one of the best employment records in Europe. As members have said in various ways, that implies that the pool of skilled employees is largely in employment and needs to be replenished by young people coming out of school, by the fresh talent initiative and by skilling or reskilling those who have dropped off the employment registers.
The difficult point is often made that in Glasgow there are 100,000 people on the incapacity list. Some of those people are the casualties of the old heavy industries. Some have poor health or learning difficulties. Some have chaotic lifestyles. Some are simply crushed by domestic or financial pressures and the other pressures of life. The sad fact is that throughout Scotland that situation is supplemented by too many young people who lack the basic skills, the personal organisation, the drive or the ability to get up in the morning to be of immediate use to employers. That challenge is faced throughout Scotland. It is not enough to say, as Alex Neil suggested, that it is in some way the fault of the Executive, because it reflects wider trends and issues in society that we all have to deal with as parliamentarians.
Of course, major strides have been made in this area. We have exceeded by a considerable amount the target for modern apprenticeships. A great deal of work is being done by individuals in schools, colleges and projects across the country. The Education Committee visited some very good projects in Perth, for example. A series of such initiatives are making a considerable impact. We need to assess them, to see what works and to ensure that the more successful projects are made available across the country, in places where they are important.
A number of other points have been made. Rightly, the importance of colleges was touched on. Brian Monteith made a good point about gender imbalance. However, gender imbalance in the construction industry has much to do with the industry's structure and the way in which it has developed. Because of a lack of stability of contracts over time, there has been a move towards contracting out to smaller organisations and individuals who do not see training new people as their responsibility. That is one of the issues with which we must deal. There is the oddity of there being skills shortages at the same time as we are unable to get people jobs and openings in parts of the construction industry. Everyone suffers from that structural problem.
Shiona Baird was right to speak about the need for us to transfer to less wasteful industries. In the background is the green jobs strategy that Jim Wallace announced a while ago. I think that that is one of the most significant strands in the Scottish Executive's work in this area. It is matched in many respects by work that is being done at Glasgow Caledonian University and a number of colleges across Scotland to provide the skills and training that will enable us to take full advantage of opportunities for green jobs.
Much has happened in the area of skills. We face big challenges and there is much to do. However, this has been a useful debate. I support the Executive motion and the work that is to be done in the area.
I start by reassuring Robert Brown that under the Conservatives there will be no cuts in funding for education. His colleague in the coalition Tom McCabe has said that savings of more than £700 million will be found. It is our priority to have direct payment of schools. I recognise that Robert Brown may have a different policy regarding the savings that Tom McCabe has identified, but we wish them to be ploughed into education. I want to make it clear that we are in favour of a policy of no cuts in funding for education.
Will the member give way?
No—I have a lot to say on this subject.
I have made the point many times, and will continue to make it, that there will be no cuts in funding for education under the Conservatives. That is our policy. As long as I am education spokesman for the Conservative party in Scotland, it will remain our policy.
I am glad to sum up for the Conservatives in what has been an enlightened and productive debate on skills. We recognise the direct benefits that a skilled workforce will provide to the Scots economy. That is why we believe in improving education and training opportunities, through co-operation between schools and businesses.
Cathie Craigie spoke about the importance of hope and opportunity—a theme to which we should all be sympathetic. We suffer from a skills shortage. Adam Ingram mentioned soft skills. A much-repeated complaint is that Scotland is sending too many of its young people to study at university, while there is a lack of skilled plumbers and builders. Unfortunately, there is a considerable amount of truth in that complaint. Sixty per cent of hard-to-fill vacancies in construction and 63 per cent of hard-to-fill vacancies in plumbing are due to skills shortages. I echo colleagues' concerns that Executive policy, rather than the demands of business and industry, is driving the number of young people who go to university. Many young people are graduating with substantial debt and are unable to find graduate-level jobs in Scotland. That is a prime cause of the brain drain that we are experiencing, with Scotland suffering a net loss of 16 to 34-year-olds to the rest of Britain.
As a nation, we should encourage young people to stay in Scotland by making Scotland a more attractive place in which to do business, attracting investment and creating jobs. We can do that by, among other measures, reducing business taxes such as non-domestic rates and water charges, and increasing investment in the transport infrastructure.
Truancy and classroom indiscipline and disengagement have been on the increase in Scotland. Last year, more than 3,000 young people left school with no qualifications. The Education Committee is currently carrying out a curriculum review to establish ways of engaging more pupils. The smart young people project in Perth, which Robert Brown rightly praised recently, is an excellent example of what successful initiatives can achieve.
Another key initiative is the school-college partnership. The Conservatives are committed to enabling all 14-year-olds who wish to access vocational courses at further education colleges to do so. Many schools and colleges have already engaged in successful partnerships but, in some cases, there remain issues of transport, timetabling and extending the provision to all pupils, not only the disengaged. It is encouraging to note that enrolments to colleges have gone up by 19 per cent since 1997-98, but 60 per cent of students have no qualifications on entering college. More effective school-college partnerships must be encouraged to enable a greater number of young people to access vocational training before they reach school-leaving age.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton re-emphasises the role of schools and college, which I welcome. However, the Tories' document on the Letwin guarantee shows that a saving of £175 million from the community schools programme would be part of the income and savings that would contribute to their proposed £916 million tax cut. The Conservatives' Letwin guarantee document shows that they would cut that funding.
I have already told Jeremy Purvis that the Conservatives are not cutting a single penny from education, however much he might repeat the statement that we will. I happen to be the Conservative school education spokesman in Scotland and I tell him that it is our policy not to cut a single penny from the education budget for Scotland. We have explained our position and, however much the Liberal party might dislike it, it will remain our position.
Businesses have a strong contribution to make to the local community and can form the basis of a strong entrepreneurial future for local economies by equipping young people with skills for work. Local businesses should be encouraged to work with schools on young enterprise and enterprise in education schemes to train pupils in the skills that are necessary for work and provide them with the necessary work experience.
Brian Monteith and, I think, Shiona Baird spoke against gender stereotyping. There is a great deal to be said for less stereotyping. We want the best people for the jobs concerned and want everyone to have the opportunity to obtain fulfilment within the system. I remember visiting Ethicon, where surgical needles were made, some years ago. Hundreds of the employees were women; I cannot recall a single man doing the same job as the women there. If men and women have the aptitude, ability and inclination to do something, they should be allowed to follow it through to success.
If we are to retain our talented young people in Scotland, we have to foster an environment that is conducive to enterprise and the entrepreneurial spirit. As Sir Winston Churchill said,
"We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give."
I call Alex Neil. Mr Neil, I can give you eight minutes.
Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. Perhaps it is my birthday as well.
I will begin on a positive note. I am sure that we all agree that there is much to be proud of in skills and education in Scotland. The performance of our universities is one example, as our academic achievement is third best in the world—not per head, simply third best—as measured by the OECD. There is also a great deal to be proud of in the good work that is going on in our colleges and among private sector training providers.
I am sure that we all share in that pride, but we must also recognise that there are still problems to be solved and issues to be addressed, which is not to run Scotland down. I will list 10 challenges on the skills agenda in Scotland. The first, which is one of the most urgent, concerns the 16 to 19-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training—NEETs. I will not make a party-political issue of the matter, because I accept that, as Robert Brown said, such issues are complex, but the situation is getting worse not better.
The official statistics show that between 2001 and 2003, the number of NEETs increased from 33,000 to 35,000. In Cathie Craigie's area—North Lanarkshire, which includes Cumbernauld and Kilsyth—the increase was 50 per cent, so there is nothing for us to be complacent about. If a good proportion of those 35,000 16 to 19-year-olds were in training or an apprenticeship, that would go a long way towards solving many of the problems of shortages to which Lord James Douglas-Hamilton referred, when employers report an inadequate supply of young people to train in the construction industry or in plumbing, for example. Addressing that must be top of our priorities. I hope that when the Executive produces its employability framework in the summer, it will zero in on that problem.
The second issue is more strategic and Robert Brown referred to it in an intervention. All the evidence shows that intervention in the early years—pre-school and in primary school—provides a far bigger bang for the buck than waiting until later years to invest in our kids. We have quite a good record on spend per student in the higher education sector—we spend on average about 120 per cent of the OECD average. However, our spend per pupil in the early years is only about 75 per cent of the OECD average. A strategic issue that we all must address is the need to up investment substantially in the early years, although not at the expense of the tertiary sector, because that would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. We must give priority in additional spending to the pre-school and primary school years. That will be a fundamental prerequisite for long-term success in our skills agenda.
Thirdly, we must address access. In Scotland in 1950—long before I was born—1 per cent of school leavers went to university. That figure has now increased to about 52 per cent. The number is slightly down this year, at about 48 or 49 per cent, but the average is 50 per cent. That represents a massive increase in those who go to university.
Despite that increase, the reality is that the percentage of children from poorer backgrounds who reach university is stubbornly still about 14 per cent, which is much the same as it was in the 1950s and 1960s. We have never fundamentally addressed how we improve access to higher education for that group. I do not believe that anything in their genes—I am not talking about their denims—is inherently inferior to the genes of middle-class or aristocratic children. Something is fundamentally wrong when we allow the great pool of talent among our working-class kids to continue to go to waste.
I do not accept that an easy and simple solution exists and I do not think that all that is needed is money, grants or loans, although they are a major part of the solution. Other issues are involved. However, one exciting thing that the Parliament can do is to address access to higher education.
The member may well wish to correct me, but I understand that the 50 per cent refers to school leavers who go into higher education, not necessarily to university. Many gain a higher education qualification through the further education system. The future emphasis will be on those who are in their early 20s or 30s returning to an FE college to obtain a higher education qualification.
I am talking about higher education. The member is right: 40 per cent of the people who go to university go via the FE route. That is why it is important to move to having one funding council, for example, because the institutional division between further and higher education is being blurred.
Another challenge relates to part-time students. If we want to encourage more people to come back into the labour market, we must get people in their 30s and 40s to go back into training and into re-education. However, as Adam Ingram pointed out, those who go back in via the part-time route probably still get the worst deal and have the least entitlement, although there have been improvements. Addressing that issue is important.
I think that we all agree that the modern apprenticeships programme is good, but the non-completion rate in most local enterprise company areas is still approaching an enormous potential waste. We must address that issue as well as the related issue of skills shortages in particular sectors. I highlight the construction sector. Over the next few years, we will need to recruit around 27,000 people into the construction sector in Scotland. Around half of those people will have to be recruited as a result of people retiring; the other half will have to be recruited as a result of additional investment. However, with the modern apprenticeships and Construction Industry Training Board work, only between 2,000 and 2,500 people are being trained each year, which means that it will take around 10 years to fill the current shortages, never mind the shortages that there will be in 10 years' time. A step change is needed, particularly in the construction sector, and that represents a massive opportunity for jobs and training.
Finally, we must address the related issue of demographics, which Jim Mather talked about, and the problems of literacy and numeracy. There is still the ridiculous situation in Scotland whereby some universities are running remedial English classes for students who go to university from school to learn languages. That is unacceptable in a modern industrial country.
All those challenges must be faced up to. The issue is not about running down Scotland—we should recognise the big pluses that I mentioned at the start of my speech. We should face up to the challenges so that we can be top of the class in every one of the areas that I have mentioned.
The debate has been good and interesting, and there have been some excellent contributions, not least from Alex Neil, if he does not mind my saying so. I ticked off the boxes as he spoke and it can reasonably be claimed that we got nine out of 10, which is a pass rate by any standards.
I readily accept that we could and should do more, not least in the NEET category to which Alex Neil referred. As members know, I got the job as Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning relatively recently, and one of my personal priorities—as well as one of the Executive's partnership priorities—is to address the problem of young people who are not in education, employment or training. We are discussing a number of ideas, which we will be happy to share with the Enterprise and Culture Committee in due course, because we lag behind other parts of Europe and places beyond Europe in that regard. There may be many reasons why that is so, but we need much better data that show who the young people in question are and why they are in such a position. I categorically assure members that as we develop, roll out and discuss the employability strategy with the Enterprise and Culture Committee, the priority will be to address that issue.
Since I got this job, it has been clear to me—indeed, it was clear to me long before then, in the 28 or so years in which I worked in the trade union movement and had a close interest in skills development—that skills in all their various forms are absolutely crucial to the development of our growing economy. Skills are absolutely vital to our future economic prosperity and to the well-being not only of individuals, but of communities that depend on the industries that feed off those skills.
We all know that for Scotland to be truly prosperous, it must draw on the potential of its workforce, its people, its human resource. That is why the skills and training agenda is one of the most important political issues of the day. That is why we believe that through our lifelong learning strategy, we must not only develop the skills of today, but constantly revisit and develop those skills to match the requirements of the global economy in which we now compete and the needs and requirements of business and industry, through an employer-led approach to rolling out skills training.
In the short time that I have been doing this job, I have been enormously encouraged by the individuals and groups that I have met, who have demonstrated the genuine difference that learning new skills makes to them and their lifestyles. For instance, I met a number of former drug addicts who have transformed their lives and potential by learning skills and going through new training to bring them back to a normal human existence. There is nothing better in this job than to see that process come to fruition.
Such training benefits not just individuals, but wider society as a whole. Skills can provide individuals with a gateway to a confident, positive and prosperous future. That is why we have put so much emphasis on them. The partnership agreement makes it clear that growing the economy is our top priority and skills improvement and development are an important part of that.
I agree absolutely with what Cathie Craigie said. Like her, I will never see my 50th birthday again, but it is easy to forget how bad things used to be. More than 34,000 apprentices are currently receiving skills training. In addition, more than 90,000 people have received training through a modern apprenticeship since the programme began. Through the new deal, we have virtually eradicated youth unemployment in this country. It is to the eternal shame of the Conservative party, and indeed anyone in the nationalist party who does not support the new deal programme, that they seek to dispense with the programme and abandon young people again to the hopelessness that was the Thatcher years.
The Futureskills Scotland report was badly misrepresented by Adam Ingram. As Des McNulty correctly pointed out, the skills supply in Scotland is generally fit for purpose, with vacancies as a result of skills shortages representing less than 1 per cent of employee posts. This is not a controversial thing to say: skills shortages are not necessarily a bad thing per se. They are symptomatic of a growing, vibrant expanding economy.
I accept that general point, but skills shortages go side by side with 150,000 people who are officially unemployed in Scotland. There is a clear breakdown in getting more of those 150,000 unemployed people trained and retrained to take up current vacancies.
There is no dispute between us on that point. The Futureskills Scotland survey shows that where skills shortages exist, they are predominantly in the growing business sector that is mostly small and expanding. Were such shortages to act as a constraint on growth, it would undoubtedly be a matter of greater concern to us, but there is no evidence of that.
If we are to expand employment and training opportunities, we must not only continue to invest in the public sector and further education, which I will come to in a minute, but ensure that there is growth in training opportunities in the private sector. I do not disagree about that.
Futureskills Scotland did not publish any information about the number of job applicants who lack certain skills. The report refers to the proportion of respondents to the employers skill survey who reported a skills shortage vacancy and who said that applicants for those vacancies lacked certain skills. Of the 5 per cent of establishments that reported being affected by a skills shortage vacancy, 24 per cent felt that applicants lacked basic numeracy skills and 29 per cent felt that they lacked basic literacy skills. Comparatively speaking, those percentages are extremely small proportions of the total.
Murdo Fraser is wrong to say that 29 per cent of respondents with skills shortage vacancies reported that applicants lacked basic literacy skills. That ranked only eighth in the list of 12 skills that were reported as lacking. For example, it was some way behind oral communication skills, which was cited as lacking by 57 per cent of the 5 per cent of respondents who reported being affected by a skills shortage vacancy. I am not being complacent or suggesting that there is no problem, but the problem is not of the order of magnitude that Murdo Fraser made it out to be.
Murdo Fraser is right to refer to the fact that the Conservative Government incorporated the further education colleges. However, it was not the act of incorporation that was controversial but the proposition that further education establishments should compete with each other for students rather than co-operating to build a skills agenda.
It is true that the Conservatives increased the number of places in higher education but they did not fund that expansion. The reason why they could not do so was that they were paying too much money to people to be unemployed. Not only were they paying people not to be economically active but they did not have the money that they should have been investing in further and higher education because they had 3 million people on the dole. They were increasing education opportunities but not providing employment opportunities at the end of the route. That was a recipe for disaster, which is why the Conservatives are sitting on the Opposition benches and will not be standing in my position for the foreseeable future.
That is an interesting analysis. Of course, many people would say that many people now work for the Government. Since 1997, we have lost 1 million jobs in manufacturing. Scottish manufacturing is now at its lowest ebb—lower than it has been in the history of this country. What does the Executive have to crow about in relation to the state of the Scottish economy?
There has indeed been a shake-out in the manufacturing industry, but at the same time, we have record levels of employment across the economy, the longest period of sustained economic growth for 200 years and more people in employment now than has been the case since records began.
Not in Scotland.
My statement is equally true of Scotland. I will deal with the nationalists' proposition in a minute but first I want to talk about employers and unions.
Employers play a hugely important role in driving up Scotland's skills base. We understand that and are working with them closely through the skills for business network and Investors in People to ensure that their contribution is valued and maximised.
I would not want to leave the podium without mentioning the trade union movement, as it is equally important. Our lifelong learning strategy speaks of the important role that unions can play in learning. Unions have a key role to play in workforce development, by influencing and working in partnership with employers, and they have an important role in leading workplace learning projects. That role will be enhanced in the coming years with the development of the union learning academy. That is why we have invested £3.3 million in 54 union learning projects and will invest a further £1.6 million during the period from 2006 to 2008.
Mr Mather made reference to Quebec, which was a departure for him. I had been expecting the usual litany of small, independent European countries to be rolled out as examples of places that are better than us. However, we learned that it is now Quebec that will be held up to us as the epitome of economic performance, which is strange, considering that Quebec is not independent and is part of a much larger economic union, albeit a federal one. Does that not somewhat destroy the member's constitutional argument that economic growth can be born only of independence, outwith the economic union to which he refers?
I conclude with some important statistics. Scotland's percentage of tertiary graduates is well above the mean. In fact, we surpass Japan, Spain, Sweden, Ireland, France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Austria and the Czech Republic. On the percentage of the population aged 25 to 64 that has attained at least upper secondary education, Scotland again exceeds the mean and is ahead of the Netherlands, France, the rest of the UK, Belgium, Australia, Ireland, Iceland, Luxembourg, Greece, Poland, Italy, Spain, Turkey and Portugal. Last but by no means least, on the percentage of the population aged 25 to 64 that had attained at least higher education in 2001, Scotland exceeds Sweden, Spain, Switzerland, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, New Zealand, Germany, Mexico, Belgium, Greece, Poland, France, Luxembourg, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Italy, Turkey, Austria and Portugal. All those countries support the Executive's motion.