Skills Strategy
Good morning. The first item of business is a Labour Party debate on motion S3M-1951, in the name of Rhona Brankin, on the skills strategy.
We all know that the world is a rapidly changing place. Although that brings us opportunities as a country, it also presents us with new challenges. Developments in science and technology are having an increasing impact on the way in which we live our lives and do business. More than ever, Scotland's economic position is dependent on how we react to increased global competition.
Labour wants Scotland's businesses and citizens to prosper and flourish. For that to happen, our workforce must be equipped with a world-class skills base, so that we can compete against our international competitors. Improving Scotland's skills should be at the heart of the Government's agenda. The Government should work to ensure that we are a powerhouse of prosperity and, alongside that, to deliver social justice.
In decisively rejecting the Scottish Government's skills strategy back in September, the Parliament sent a message to the Scottish National Party that the document was wholly inadequate and lacking in detail. However, in its 2007 manifesto—that document so seemingly sacrosanct that even Alex Neil parrots from it at every opportunity—the SNP stated:
"We will aim to ensure that people of all ages can access relevant, valued and quality assured training opportunities throughout their working lives to keep pace with the rapidly changing demands of the global economy."
It added:
"In the long term, we will seek to relax the age restrictions on modern apprenticeships so that older workers can benefit from the programme too."
I am a little puzzled that one of the SNP's early steps in this area was to cut the number of adult apprenticeships, slashing it by 79 per cent—down from 6,225 last year to 1,229 this year. Of course, on planet Hyslop that was not a cut but, as her Scottish Government press release put it, a refocusing of support. So now we know—when the SNP cuts apprenticeship places, teaching posts and police numbers, those are not really cuts but refocusing of support.
More bizarre still, the Government has withdrawn support from adult apprenticeships in key areas such as tourism, information technology and retail. The tourism industry alone is worth more than £4 billion a year to the Scottish economy and supports more than 200,000 people, many of them in rural areas where other employment opportunities are few and far between. Frankly, it is perverse to reduce training opportunities for adults and to weaken our skills base in such a key area.
The Scottish Government's announcement not only denied opportunities to people who are seeking to improve their skills, impacting on our skills base in key sectors, but has meant lay-offs at respected training providers. As recently as November last year, training providers were told by Scottish Enterprise that there would be no changes to the current contribution level. In early March, many were promised new contracts, only to have the rug pulled out from under their feet by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning later in the month, to the astonishment of long-established training providers. In a letter to a training provider, one of the cabinet secretary's officials described the timing of the announcement, in typically understated civil service fashion, as "unfortunate". It was certainly unfortunate for Glasgow-based Microcom Training Ltd, a firm with a track record stretching back nearly 25 years, which has had to lay off a third of its workforce as a result of the cuts that Ms Hyslop announced in March. The Scottish Training Federation estimates that, under her watch, around 400 employees will lose their jobs in member companies. Is the cabinet secretary proud of that statistic?
I am disappointed by the lack of substance in the SNP's amendment. The SNP has so little to say on the issue that it has opted to point the finger of blame for the SNP's increasingly shambolic skills strategy at the previous Executive. I am more than happy to talk about the Labour-led Executive's track record on skills and the Scottish economy. Under Labour, the number of apprenticeships in Scotland rose from 2,000 to 35,000. Under Labour, the national minimum wage was introduced to make work pay—no thanks to SNP members, including the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and the First Minister, who could not be bothered to stay awake to vote for it. Under Labour, Scotland's unemployment rate was halved.
In a self-congratulatory manner that is fast becoming a hallmark of the Government, the SNP amendment refers to
"widespread business and industry support for the Scottish Government's skills strategy".
If we cast our minds back to September, we will recall that there was broad support, including in the chamber, for a skills strategy, but that Opposition members and others made clear their view that more detail was needed. Now that we have seen a bit more of the detail, we know what the SNP's real agenda is. Let us make no mistake—modern apprenticeships are under attack from a party that, as is increasingly clear, acts for short-term political advantage instead of taking decisions that are good for the long-term future of our economy and our country.
Why does Rhona Brankin think that Scotland's productivity and economic growth rates have lagged behind those of the United Kingdom as a whole? If skills provision by the previous Government was so successful, why has there been no improvement in those rates? Does she have the grace at least to support the Government's proposals to increase the number of construction and engineering modern apprenticeships by 1,000?
We do not object to increasing the number of modern apprenticeships in the areas that the cabinet secretary mentioned—the problem is that that has meant support being cut in other areas. It is not a real-terms increase, but an insult to other areas of the economy in Scotland that are hugely important, such as tourism.
The huge danger is that we will fall behind the rest of the UK. The UK Government recognises the need to invest in skills to build a more prosperous and successful country and is putting in record levels of funding to achieve that, unlike the SNP. The SNP Government's decision to introduce modern apprenticeships at level 2 is a backward step because, increasingly, the minimum skill level that is required to sustain employment is level 3. Labour believes that all 16 to 19-year-olds who meet the entry requirement should have an entitlement to a modern apprenticeship. That is why a Labour MSP, John Park—himself a former apprentice—has proposed a member's bill to do just that. Just last week, the UK Government announced that it intends to introduce a right for all employees to request time off for training. When summing up, will the cabinet secretary clarify whether the SNP's non-interventionist approach to skills will include such a measure?
Brought to us by the same ministerial team that brought us walking to school, provided by specialist physical education teachers—allegedly—the SNP's skills strategy is an increasingly empty and drifting vessel. I hope that today the Parliament will insist that the Government produces a revised strategy that sets out in detail the mechanism for delivering 50,000 training places and the level at which they will be set, and which comes clean on the Government's targets for apprenticeships. We must have the detail of how the Government intends to measure the success or failure of its skills strategy. To prevent Scots and our economy from losing out because of the Government's failure to make skills and apprenticeships a priority, I urge members to support the motion in my name.
I move,
That the Parliament notes that the Scottish Government's skills strategy was rejected by the Parliament on 12 September 2007; recognises the importance of skills development and utilisation in growing Scotland's economy; voices concern at the decision of the Scottish Government to move away from supporting adult apprenticeships in vital areas such as the tourism, IT and retail sectors without consultation with work-based training providers; calls on the Scottish Government to provide the Parliament, with immediate effect, the evidence to support these moves, and further calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward a revised skills strategy immediately after the summer recess containing detailed information about the level at which its 50,000 training places are being set, its targets for apprenticeships and the performance indicators used to measure success.
We are a Government with a strong and real sense of purpose—to increase sustainable economic growth. We are a Government with energy, ideas and vision, and total confidence in Scotland's ability to succeed. That is why we will achieve our goals. Scotland's people have confidence in us, and that is why we are delivering.
It is inconceivable that we would seek to impose English solutions to Scottish challenges. I am delighted to have the opportunity in this debate to outline what we achieved in our first year in Government and to reinforce our ambitious and challenging vision for a more vibrant and responsive learning system. We have laid strong foundations and have in place strong policies that will deliver benefits to all individuals in Scotland. We are not alone in thinking that—we have been inundated with support from a cross-section of the business community and stakeholders in the learning system. We are a Government that listens and responds and will not shy away from taking difficult decisions.
Has the Government been inundated with support from training providers in Scotland after the bombshell that it dropped on 31 March?
Forgive me if I am wrong, but I remember modern apprenticeships being slashed and training providers going into liquidation across the country because of a crisis in Scottish Enterprise on the Labour Party's watch.
We will not play the numbers game, because our young people are far too important for that. Simply providing more apprenticeships, thereby forcing and corralling employers and individuals into the wrong skills programme, will not only dash people's confidence, but bring MAs into disrepute. Lots of interventions are available and it would be wrong to force young people, many of whom could already be disengaged from education, into an MA. We are not in that game.
Scotland has a long and proud history of excellence and achievement in education and skills. However, for far too long we have lagged behind the rest of the UK and Europe in economic growth. Now is the time to turn that around and allow Scotland to achieve its full potential. However, that potential will not be realised by importing English solutions or by adopting a target-driven, supply-led skills system.
We recognise that we have a key role to play in driving forward our vision to achieve a smarter Scotland. We cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach to the skills intervention menu that Scotland needs. If we are to achieve our vision, we must truly adopt a range of different approaches that reflect our aspiration to have a responsive and relevant learning system.
We need to work with all our key partners, delivery agents and employer representatives. To that end, the cabinet secretary and I have met representatives of all the sector skills councils, principals of further education colleges, learners and employers, who all tell us that we are heading in the right direction.
When the minister met the skills council in the creative industries sector, where the number of modern apprenticeships is being reduced, in what context was the Government's direction welcomed?
The flexibility that we are providing for learners was welcomed.
We are clear about everyone's roles and responsibilities and how we can contribute to upskilling all individuals in Scotland.
Will the minister give way?
I must continue.
Government's job is to set the strategic context for the work and that is exactly what we have done. We will not adopt a centralist, target-setting approach, forcing supply-led solutions in order to meet some dreamed-up headline figure. We believe that it is not enough to focus only on increasing the skills of individuals; we recognise that Scotland already has higher levels of well-qualified individuals—indeed we are ahead of the rest of the UK in that area. As well as maintaining high levels of skills acquisition, we need to improve how we utilise individuals' skills.
Making that happen has necessitated change. Standing still was not, and is not, an option. When we launched the skills for Scotland strategy, I described it as a call to action. In the seven months since then, we have made significant progress despite the challenge of a tighter financial settlement from Westminster, which has led us to make tough choices. We have announced changes to the modern apprenticeship programme: we increased the number of individuals undertaking engineering and construction-related MAs by 1,000 and introduced a new life science MA and the opportunity to develop level 2 MAs, which was welcomed by the food and drink industry, among others.
In order to provide Skills Development Scotland with the space that it needs to deliver the universally endorsed skills strategy, we are directing all new support for adult MAs to the engineering and construction-related sectors only. We did that to ensure that Skills Development Scotland was not tied into four-year contracts, which would reduce our ability to deliver real change now. Therefore, some MAs that we know did not deliver value for money will not be supported, and we have directed the sector skills councils and Skills Development Scotland to scope out over the next year a fuller and more relevant range of skills interventions that employers actually need. This is a real opportunity, and a first step towards a demand-led system.
Setting volume-based targets, enshrining entitlements in legislation and forcing employers and individuals into skills interventions such as modern apprenticeships is not the answer. We believe that we have struck the right balance between responding to the needs of employers and initiating substantial changes to our learning infrastructure to accommodate the dramatic change that has been universally welcomed.
I move amendment S3M-1951.3, to leave out from "the Scottish Government's skills strategy" to end and insert:
"under the previous administration, Scotland's growth rate and productivity levels lagged behind the United Kingdom and believes that this indicates that a new approach to skills and the economy is necessary; notes the widespread business and industry support for the Scottish Government's skills strategy and believes that government's role is to respond to demand from employers, to improve skills utilisation and support individuals' skills development."
When I saw in the Business Bulletin last week that the Labour Party had chosen for debate today the subject of skills, I thought that there had been a typing error. For the past three weeks, Labour has spoken of nothing but the need for a referendum on Scottish independence. I imagined that the Labour Party was waiting desperately for its first debating-time slot so that it could have an opportunity to set out in detail to Parliament its thinking on the important issue of our constitutional future.
Imagine my surprise when I saw that today's debates were not to be about the constitution but about skills and the Scottish Ambulance Service. Those are important subjects, but it is remarkable that the Labour Party wants to say nothing at all about the major subject of political debate of the past three weeks. Perhaps its reticence is because it was unable to come up with a motion, given that it has held so many different positions over the past three weeks that it does not even know what its position is on the subject.
You have only four minutes in which to mention skills, Mr Fraser.
There is a certain irony in a party choosing for debate the subject of skills when its front bench is so lacking in skills.
I am pleased to see so many Labour members here this morning; I thought that they would all be down in Crewe and Nantwich campaigning for a Labour victory in that important by-election. However, it is clear that they have already given it up as a lost cause.
This is an important debate and I welcome the Labour motion, which highlights some important points. In September last year, we debated the Government's skills strategy, which did not gain parliamentary support. I do not believe that the situation has improved much since then.
The new skills agency, Skills Development Scotland, has been established, but there is still a great deal of uncertainty about who is to be on its board and how it is to work. A chair is now in place, but the organisation still has only an interim chief executive and interim board members, and there is no detail on how the organisation is to work.
I inform Parliament that I have approved board appointments, which will be announced shortly. The advert has been placed for the chief executive, who will be in place in the next few months.
I am pleased to hear that progress is being made because I constantly meet skills providers and people in industry who are frustrated by the lack of progress on Skills Development Scotland. The sooner that we get that body in place and know what it does, the better.
The Labour motion refers to the Government's decision to move away from adult modern apprenticeships in vital sectors such as tourism, information technology and retail. I do not know whether the Government has made the right decision because, frankly, there has been no information to support that decision, and no consultation with people in those sectors.
The Scottish Training Federation wrote to me and others on 14 May, expressing its concern about the sudden change in emphasis—without any consultation—in the adult modern apprenticeship programme, thus denying training providers any scope to forward plan. The result has been redundancies and restructuring. That is not the mark of competent government and I therefore support Labour's call for the Government to come forward with the evidence to support that move.
There is concern in other sectors, such as the food and drink industry—which is supposedly a priority industry for the Government—that there will be no further funding of apprenticeships for those over 20. Given that the vast majority of people working in that sector are over 20, that will have a serious effect on the ability of the industry to train staff.
Our amendment refers to the important issue of vocational education. We in the Conservative party have always supported the idea that school pupils aged 14 and upwards should have the right to choose education by a vocational route. Vocational education should be seen not as second best to academic learning, but as an alternative for those who wish to take it up. Vocational education should be high quality and available to all. The skills strategy should set out in detail the SNP Government's plans for expanding access to vocational education, and that is why we need a revised skills strategy to be brought to Parliament for debate and approval.
The SNP Government's approach to skills is seriously lacking. The minister's coat might well be on a shoogly peg following her blunders last week on PE provision in schools, but that is no excuse for the Government's inability to address such serious issues properly.
I move amendment S3M-1951.1, to insert at end:
"and details of how access will be provided to high quality vocational education for all school pupils aged 14 or above."
On 12 September, the Parliament voted 72 to 47 against the Government's skills strategy, with no abstentions. There was a good reason for that: the strategy simply did not live up to the Government's hype. It was not a robust document against which progress could be judged and it did not clearly express the structures that would be put in place to make the improvements that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and ministers have said are badly needed. It contained no baseline data or any measurable areas or objective criteria against which to judge progress.
In response, the Government said that it was never meant to be that type of document. Instead, it was simply mood music—whalesong from the education directorates to soothe and reassure the sector. However, on 12 September, the Minister for Schools and Skills said that the document was a call to action. At the meeting of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee on 26 September, I asked representatives of colleges and universities to tell the committee what action they had been called on to carry out. Howard McKenzie said:
"I do not think that we are being asked to do anything differently",
and David Caldwell of Universities Scotland said:
"the universities are not really being asked to do anything much."—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 26 September 2007; c 143.]
On the very day that the strategy was comprehensively defeated in the chamber, Maureen Watt said:
"Iain Gray said that he could not find fault with it, Murdo Fraser gave it a pass and Jeremy Purvis recognised the importance of working with colleges to deliver locally."—[Official Report, 12 September 2007; c 1631.]
According to the Government, the strategy was agreed with acclamation, and a defeat of 72 to 47 votes was actually a ringing endorsement.
Maureen Watt said that the Government has vision. In fact, it has a kind of reverse myopia: it sees things in front of it as a blur, while things in the far-off distance are quite clear. Unfortunately, we have become accustomed to that rationale. Indeed, it was used by Fiona Hyslop when she denied that the SNP had promised to write off student debt—or, at least, she tried to deny it until she was referred to her own website. The same rationale lies behind Alex Salmond's claim that a consultation document that did not even exist had been published and Maureen Watt's statement that walking to school counted as PE.
On 12 September, Maureen Watt said:
"As a result, this strategy acknowledges that a greater national effort is required—it is a call for action."—[Official Report, 12 September 2007; c 1634.]
The next day, Adam Ingram said:
"I know that Parliamentary colleagues will be interested—indeed, impatient—to hear more detail on implementation."—[Official Report, 13 September 2007; c 1684.]
We were impatient—and we still are. Eight months later, we still have uncertainty and delay.
The new organisation, Skills Development Scotland, has a budget of £16 million for set-up costs alone—an amount that is just shy of the Government's entire budget for skills learning, and we still do not know what its running costs will be.
On the latter point, I refer the member to my letter to two committees with interests in this area.
Does the member recall the Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment to bring together Careers Scotland and learndirect Scotland, which, according to PA Consulting Group, would have cost £22 million? Setting up any new agency will incur costs, but I can tell you—by which I mean, of course, the Presiding Officer—that the efficiencies and improvements that we will get from Skills Development Scotland will lead to improvements in skills in front-line services.
The cabinet secretary is talking complete rubbish. We decided in the end that we would keep those matters within the enterprise functions, because we knew that the proposal would cost £22 million and felt that it would be better to invest that money in our young people and in developing skills and training instead of hiving it off for some national quango with set-up costs alone of £16 million.
The new agency is meant to be a supply-side body for skills that will deliver national courses. In my area, the Government has abolished Scottish Enterprise Borders, whose budget last year for providing a range of skills and training courses was £1.2 million. This year, I have no idea what the skills budget for the area might be, because no one is in a position to say. Last year, there was an estimated £18 million out-turn on that investment; we estimate that this year the equivalent will be £5 million. Skills functions have been transferred to Skills Development Scotland, but eight months after its inception we still do not know anything about its regional structure. The structure of Scottish Enterprise south might be mirrored, which would break up the relationship that has developed among training providers and education institutions in the Borders, the Lothians and Edinburgh, or the structure might cover the Lothian and Borders area, which would not reflect the area covered by Scottish Enterprise south.
I hope that the minister will clarify when the regional structures will be developed. After all, I have been told that, because of that uncertainty and because no one at Skills Development Scotland is able to give a clear indication about skills development in the area, Scottish Borders Council's single outcome agreement will have to contain guesses about training provision in the Borders. That is not exactly a call to action.
As someone who has provided work placement opportunities for local young people, I received a few weeks ago a letter notifying me that the service, which has always been developed in the Borders, was being provided from an agency in Pollok. Two weeks later, I received a four-page form regarding new work placement arrangements, which was sent to all businesses in the Borders and had to be filled in within four days because the arrangements were going live at the beginning of June. That is a hapless state of affairs—[Interruption.] The cabinet secretary from a sedentary position blames Scottish Borders Council. That is typical of the Government's approach: when it finds that its national strategy is not being delivered, it simply blames the local partners.
I move amendment S3M-1951.2, to insert at end:
"and regrets the priority given by the Scottish Government in budgeting £16 million for set-up costs alone for Skills Development Scotland, while removing specific funding for skills for work courses delivered in schools and colleges."
We come to the open debate. We can be a bit flexible with time, but I ask that members keep their speeches to around four minutes.
I call Stuart McMillan, to be followed by Marilyn Livingstone.
Thank you, Presiding Officer—
I apologise; this is a Labour Party debate. I call Marilyn Livingstone, to be followed by Stuart McMillan.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I welcome the motion, which gives us an opportunity to debate the importance of skills development to growing Scotland's economy. Last September, the chamber quite rightly rejected the Government's skills strategy, and today's debate allows us to seek a revised strategy that provides detail, clarity of purpose and a clear vision of how we can move forward and tackle some of the real challenges that we are facing now and will face in the years to come.
I want to focus on two areas that will be vital in building our workforce's skills base and therefore our economic success. First, given that they enrol more than 400,000 students each year and deliver learning to 25 per cent of students in Scottish higher education, Scottish colleges will be crucial to the effective and efficient development of economic success across the industry clusters. Although I certainly welcome the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council's current review of funding methodology, I believe that, if it is to have any credibility, it must address the unfair funding differentials in the sector. Moreover, as the sector is recognised by key stakeholders and the Parliament as a bridge to a skilled, safe and competent workforce, the Government must engage with it at a policy level. I would like to hear the minister's plans in that respect.
On the same theme, what progress is being made by the future thinking task force? Despite the fact that it is looking at higher education, it has no representation from the colleges, even though they deliver learning to 25 per cent of HE students in Scotland. Will the task force consider parity of funding in the sector? What are the timescales for its reporting back, and what consultation will be carried out with Parliament and key stakeholders? The vital work of building the skills base of our workforce includes developing new skills as well as ensuring better utilisation of existing ones and I believe that Scotland's colleges are best placed to deliver that agenda.
Secondly, it will come as no surprise to the cabinet secretary to learn that I, as convener of the cross-party group on construction and chair of its skills and training sub-group, want to raise certain concerns that have been expressed by the construction industry. It believes that consideration must be given to future training needs and the availability of funding for the sector and is worried about skills shortages and lack of training provision in certain areas of Scotland. For example, in the trade of stone masonry, the combination of increased demand, retirement among the current skilled workforce and too few training places has resulted in a skills shortage. Given the current emphasis on restoring our built environment, that is becoming a huge issue.
The industry is also concerned about the capping of construction places in our higher and further education colleges and variations in the funding for modern apprenticeships between Scotland and England and Wales. Such funding is very important in increasing employer participation. In Scotland, 16 to 19-year-old engineering construction apprentices are awarded £9,000, while those over 19 receive £4,500. However, in England, 16 to 18-year-old apprentices receive £15,856, while those who are over 19 receive £8,567.
Scotland faces some major challenges in the next few years, not only from the global marketplace but in relation to the skilled labour that is required to deliver major projects such as the new Forth crossing, proposed new hospital buildings and—I hope—a school building programme. Scotland's construction industry will play a vital role in the delivery of that agenda. I ask the minister to consider the industry's concerns very seriously.
Skills Development Scotland announced that, during the first half of 2008, it would undertake a business product review of current service delivery arrangements. How long will that take? Who will be consulted? How will the review dovetail with the future thinking task force review and the Scottish funding council's funding mechanisms review? I ask those questions because there has been a lot of bureaucratic change, and we are desperate to hear an announcement on how the Government intends to draw together all those different strands to ensure a cohesive approach to raising Scotland's level of skills.
The Government's previous strategy was rejected by the Parliament for being light on detail, and we call on the Scottish National Party Government to produce a revised skills strategy that gives clarity, vision and direction. When will the cabinet secretary be in a position to deliver such a strategy—a strategy that is fit for its purpose of delivering a fully skilled and qualified workforce that is ready to meet the challenges ahead, and a strategy that tackles regional equity issues and delivers for all Scotland's communities?
I now call Stuart McMillan.
Déjà vu, Presiding Officer.
As we are all aware, the issue of skills covers a wide range of areas, from early learning to adult learning and everything in between. The combination of the SNP Government's skills strategy and the work of Skills Development Scotland is a positive force that will move forward Scotland's ambition in the area of skills. Scotland has a proud tradition of skill-based workers, and investment in such areas is the highest in the UK, which results in a well-qualified population. However, being qualified is often not enough.
The Labour approach is heavily influenced by the Leitch review of skills, with an emphasis on increasing the number of qualifications that are available, rather than considering demand from the labour market. Research by Futureskills Scotland shows that, while Scotland has successfully developed a highly skilled workforce, demand for such workers has not always kept pace with the increased supply. The Scottish Government's strategy balances the current disparity between employers and skilled workers. By considering the needs of employers as well as placing individuals at the centre of skills development, a coherent skills base will be developed.
The SNP does not believe in a volume-based approach. Can the member please explain why it has set a target of 50,000 training places?
I will come on to that later.
That cohesive structure serves partly to close the gap between academic and vocational learning. Vocational learning is a valuable alternative to the academic route that most people consider when aiming to enhance their skills, and I am pleased that the Scottish Government recognises the importance of vocational learning in its approach to skills. I am sure that all members acknowledge the dearth of plumbers, electricians and other skilled tradespeople in our communities.
John Park's proposed member's bill focuses on apprenticeships and gives us a rather interesting insight into the state of Labour's affairs. Does he really think that doing the best for Scotland means duplicating UK Government policies? Clearly not, because one could be forgiven for thinking that he was ever so slightly envious of the SNP strategy when he spoke to The Scotsman last September.
I missed the member's second point there, but I point out that the proposed apprenticeship rights (Scotland) bill is not a duplication of UK policy. Does he agree that it is quite unusual for a member to criticise a bill before its consultation period is finished? That has probably never happened in the Parliament in the past nine years.
I am not actually criticising the member's bill per se. When the bill is introduced and there has been a full consultation process, I am sure that it will be given the due consideration that it requires.
John Park is quite right that the first step that has been taken has been welcomed by, among others, Iain McMillan of the Confederation of British Industry Scotland and Liz Cameron from the Scottish Chambers of Commerce.
When he spoke to The Scotsman about the matter last year, John Park said:
"Skills is a policy area where there is much agreement, and even political opponents can see merit in the Cabinet secretary for education and lifelong learning's document as a first step."
Many of us take skills for granted, but the SNP's strategy for developing skills is a positive transformation of a sector that is so vital for moving Scotland forward, and it should be welcomed if we are to do the best by Scotland's workforce.
Scotland has the chance of a generation to lay positive foundations for the future. The Commonwealth games are coming, and Scotland will be developing other major infrastructure projects. A positive skills strategy is vital to meet those and other business needs and to plug the gap that has led to a shortage in skilled tradespeople. I therefore back the amendment in the name of the cabinet secretary and reject the Labour motion.
We have heard warm words on skills from the Scottish Government, but we need the right initiatives for a successful skills strategy. The strategy that the Government produced, which it still defends today, created a new agency and precious little else. That is why Parliament deemed it insufficient, and I cannot believe that events since then could have led members to revise their opinion. However, clearly, that is what some members have done.
Being a member for North East Scotland, I am well aware of the demand for more skilled workers. Not having the right skills programme means an opportunity cost for local businesses that cannot expand as they might hope to and a cost to those people who otherwise could have taken advantage of new skills in a strong jobs market.
The oil and gas industry is not waiting for the Scottish Government on the skills issue—it is setting up its own oil and gas skills academy. The Scottish Government should at least be providing additional opportunities for such training. Training for work and training in life skills as provided by organisations such as the Aberlour Child Care Trust are among the life-changing opportunities that are available.
It is a core part of Labour's political philosophy that everybody should have the opportunity to receive the education and training that they need to fulfil their potential. We are proud of the record of the coalition Executive, which increased the number of modern apprenticeships to 34,000 in the previous session. We are not resting on our laurels: John Park's proposed bill seeks to create an entitlement to modern apprenticeships for 16 to 18-year-olds.
The member praises the figure of 34,000 modern apprenticeships. Is not the reality that less than 50 per cent of those who participated actually completed their apprenticeships?
Members will find that our track record on skills was impeccable. We increased opportunity and success.
Mr Neil would have been the first to shout his outrage at the withdrawal of adult apprenticeships, which is an opportunity cost for the people involved. His sudden reversal and his discretion on such issues is puzzling. However, I wish him well in the reshuffle for which he earnestly hopes.
The impact of the withdrawal of many adult modern apprenticeships has been made clear to me by a constituent in Dundee. Steve Moyes is a director of Coralshore, which provides training in child care. Eight young women who started their course will not now be able to complete it. Months of effort by those women have been wasted, and they are now faced with the choice of funding their own training or losing their jobs. One 20-year-old woman, who had been on the point of completing her level 2 Scottish vocational qualification, will now not be able to obtain the necessary funding to move on to level 3. She has worked in a nursery for about two years, but she will now lose her job unless she can afford to pay for her own training. For that woman and many others in her situation, that is an unrealistic option. The fact that the move on apprenticeships happened with immediate effect means that the Scottish Government has left people such as her in the lurch.
It is those very people, particularly young women, for whom we worked so hard to offer more employment opportunities who are being especially penalised by the Government's move. The priorities are perverse. Mr Moyes has asked whether withdrawing the apprenticeships on the basis of age is in line with UK law on age discrimination. I would be interested to know whether the minister can confirm that.
We should be talking about more training opportunities for all. That we are not doing so shows that the already feeble skills strategy that the Government has set out is failing. The Government is short on detail on the kind of training provision that it will seek to provide, and its proposals certainly do not match the ambition that was outlined at Westminster earlier this month, or indeed the ambition of my party and others that are represented in the chamber. That is why the Government should finally acknowledge the will of the Parliament and return to the chamber with a strategy that takes the kind of initiatives that we and others have suggested to ensure that we have the highly skilled, successful Scotland that we all want.
In the late 1990s, the Scott Lithgow shipyard at Port Glasgow was demolished and four call centres were built on its site. That was part of some new deal. To some, we were entering the knowledge economy, but that was the yard whose skilled shipwrights, engineers and boiler workers had, a decade earlier, built the Ocean Alliance drill ship—a contract that ruined the yard but produced perhaps the most sophisticated vessel of its type, which was crucial in detecting oil in the deepest of waters.
Something akin to the North Sea oil revolution is ahead of us—the renewables revolution—but we must get back to that period in terms of skills and training. That is difficult when, over the past decade, the manufacturing proportion of gross domestic product has gone down by a quarter. What will it take to get renewables up and running? Last week, we were told that renewables would create 50,000 jobs, which sounds great, until we realise that our current output of apprentices in engineering and electrotechnics is less than 2,000 a year. Baden-Württemberg, my previous employer, produces 10 times as many, even allowing for the population difference. A well-known Prime Minister said:
"We must manufacture or die"
in his book "Where There's Greed: Margaret Thatcher and the Betrayal of Britain's Future" in 1999. It was Gordon Brown. Right on, Gordon, but what happened?
How do we proceed? We require a cultural revolution and we must step up recruitment by making the pitch for the importance of mechanical engineering and the link with new technology, which is crucial to high value and innovation.
Does Christopher Harvie agree that, if the SNP had approved the Lewis wind farm application, there would have been a massive increase in manufacturing jobs at Arnish? I see Mr Allan shaking his head—no wonder.
I would put the emphasis much less on wind energy and much more on wave energy. We must tackle the might of the mighty Atlantic. That is how we must orientate ourselves.
We must get back to the age of the master engineer and Thomas Telford's idea of making any major public works project a great working academy, which means a greater degree of practical involvement and an orientation towards professions that are much more valuable than those of the estate agent—which will fairly rapidly be extinct—or lawyer. From some of my public experiences, I regretfully think that engineers make more money from turning up at public inquiries to oppose schemes than they do from advancing technology by experiment and innovation.
Another source of expertise is Europe. Unquestionably, we cannot do without western Europe for high technology, but eastern Europe is much underestimated. Our incoming workers are often well overqualified for the sort of jobs that we set them to do. Members should remember that the Lenin shipyard at Gdansk had 20,000 workers in 1980 and now has 2,000. That is only one example. Perhaps we could arrange for eastern Europe's technical know-how to be given in exchange for our knowledge of the English language, although we must remember that, these days, the shop talk of technology is in German, not English.
We must review our school system to emphasise two points: first, that craft skills are equal, if not superior, to passing academic tests; and secondly, that the menu of such skills should extend across gender competencies. The old Clydeside mentality was not very good at that, so macho Mac must move over. We need a pause for reflection after secondary school—a social year along German lines—and we would also be well advised to follow the Icelandic example of building social work and industrial involvement into the latter years at secondary school. We must do that soon, because our old carbon economy will not last a decade. We do not have time for a resit.
I speak in support of the motion in the name of my colleague Rhona Brankin.
It is worth saying at the start that the reason for the debate is that the Parliament rejected the SNP's skills strategy and, to be frank, the ministers of the minority Administration should have come back to the Parliament with something better long before now. Labour members tried to get commitments to more modern apprenticeship places during the budget debate, but that was voted down by the SNP and its new best friends, the Tories—I say to Mr Fraser that that is why we are having the debate today. Then, in April, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning announced changes to the modern apprenticeship system. Did the SNP increase the numbers, as we had asked it to do? No. It scrapped adult places, except for those in construction, engineering and life sciences. Increasing numbers in those areas is welcome, but what about elsewhere in the economy?
The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee has been conducting an inquiry into tourism and considering whether Scotland's tourism industry can grow by 50 per cent by 2015. The target is ambitious and the industry believes it to be challenging, but there is one serious problem—a shortage of skilled staff. Witness after witness has spoken of the difficulties. Indeed, the committee has been told that if it were not for the influx of migrant workers into hotels, restaurants and other businesses throughout Scotland, many of those businesses would be unable to function. Even the SNP's favourite hotelier, Donald Macdonald, is not immune to that: Aviemore, where we have all had party conferences, is full of migrant workers—and a good job they are doing, too.
Like other areas of the economy, tourism is becoming more and more reliant on new technology—for bookings, to provide information to customers and to run efficient businesses—but what did the SNP do in April? Alongside the concentration on construction, engineering and life sciences that it announced, it was clear that the SNP was abandoning modern apprenticeships in tourism, retail and information technology. We could not make it up. In Aviemore, at least, there is an attempt to set up a hotel school for the Highlands, and six chefs are in training. I urge the cabinet secretary to speak to Mr Macdonald about that rather than planning inquiries.
Our service industries are a key area of the economy. For example, the growth of Glasgow is down to tourism, financial services and IT. As an aside, if Christopher Harvie is so interested in ship building, he will be interested to hear that a major UK Government contract to build two new aircraft carriers has just been signed and that the apprentices that the shipyards in Glasgow have taken on—the largest number that they have ever taken on—have jobs for the next decade, which is to be welcomed.
Tourism is a growth sector and we need more skilled workers for it, but a major training route has been cut off. No wonder that Labour members want the minister to think again. Increasing the number of modern apprenticeships in tourism will not bring the scheme into disrepute. The minister wants a demand-led system. In tourism, there is a demand.
Yesterday, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee heard evidence from Donald Henderson, the interim chief executive of Skills Development Scotland—the new training quango that the SNP established. He talked about the organisation's operating plan for next year. I was astonished earlier to hear the minister say that she does not want something to be imported from England. Perhaps that explains why, under the heading "Individual Development", the plan calls for
"a distinctively Scottish approach to skills acquisition".
Perhaps, in her closing speech, the minister will explain exactly what that means.
Under the heading "Economic Pull", the plan refers to
"understanding current and projected demands for skills to help meet future skills needs".
The members of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee—and I include the SNP members—understand only too well the projected needs of Scotland's tourism industry: it needs many more indigenous skilled workers who are able to take their place in an exciting and vibrant industry. The SNP's decision to axe modern apprenticeships in the tourism sector and in IT is perverse and a major mistake. I hope that the cabinet secretary will, as people say, think again.
We should not take a narrow view of skills but look at the Government's total skills strategy. For example, the work that it is doing to expand the number of pre-school nursery places by 50 per cent is part of a skills strategy because, as we know, the more children who start earlier with pre-school education, the greater the number who are likely to end up in higher and further education.
Will Alex Neil give way?
I will give way in a minute. I ask Rhona Brankin to give me a minute to get into my speech.
We should not think of skills only in terms of modern apprenticeships, important though they are. For example, the proposals in the consultation document on the reforms to secondary education—particularly those for a baccalaureate—could have a huge impact on how we manage not only secondary education but the transition from secondary to tertiary education. Professor Hamnett, the principal of the University of Strathclyde, is on record as saying that one way to increase flexibility and participation rates in higher education—the universities—is to introduce a baccalaureate-type system in secondary education.
The creation of Skills Development Scotland, which was foreshadowed in the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's report four years ago, is of major significance. It is more than a bureaucratic restructuring.
Will the member give way?
In a moment.
The careers service, which has been moved from pillar to post in the past 15 to 20 years, has now got a secure bolthole and is tied in with the rest of the skills strategy and with learndirect Scotland. That is another reform that was foreshadowed four years ago, in the report of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, of which I was the convener and Marilyn Livingstone—to whom I now give way—was the excellent deputy convener.
I agree with Alex Neil that the issue of skills goes much wider than modern apprenticeships, as the speakers in my party have shown. However, my points about further and higher education were serious. The futures group that the minister chairs, and which is discussing higher education, has no representatives from the further and higher education sector. That must be addressed. Skills Development Scotland, although welcome, will not deliver, given the 0.8 per cent growth in that sector, without a strategic approach being taken and funding being allocated.
A number of parallel reviews and discussions are going on, such as the review of Scottish colleges and various other activities that are being undertaken by the funding council and directly by the Government. At the end of the day, they will all form part of the national education and skills strategy.
We must address three or four major challenges and, where possible, we must reach agreement in this chamber about how we can best address them.
Will the member give way?
My time is restricted, and I have given way a lot.
Will the member give way to me?
God, they queue up. I said that I would give way to Rhona Brankin, and I always keep my promises.
I have waited patiently. Does the member agree that, given that the Government has said that it is committed to an early years strategy, it is perverse that it is cutting modern apprenticeship support for people who work in the early years sector?
I do not agree with that, so I will turn to the key challenges that face us.
The first challenge involves the need to ensure that we have the education and skills base to facilitate the highest possible level of economic growth and development. Given that we have scarce resources, tough choices must be made about where we prioritise our skills resource.
One of the criticisms that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee made in its report three or four years ago was that the skills policy was totally divorced from the smart, successful Scotland policy. I believe that the cabinet secretary is right to try to tailor our skills strategy to the objectives of the economic growth and development strategy. That is why it is important to put more resources into key sectors that will drive the future growth of the economy.
The second major challenge, which has hardly been mentioned by the Labour speakers this morning, is the question of access, particularly to higher education.
You should be finishing now, Mr Neil.
The statistics show—as was confirmed in a recent report by the funding council—that, in the past 40 years, we have not increased the chances of people from the lowest income groups going to university. We must meet that challenge, as well as the challenges of fairness and of people who are not in employment or education. Unfortunately, I do not have time to expand on those challenges, but I am willing to give a lesson on the issues at coffee time later on.
My colleague Jeremy Purvis and others have highlighted some of the shortcomings in the Government's approach to skills, so I will not dwell on them. However, as we all know, the Government's approach to skills training, as outlined in its strategy document last September, was rejected by this Parliament, and it is outrageous that, yet again, the SNP Government is ignoring what the Parliament has said. That is completely unacceptable. The SNP's skills strategy was about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. We should by now be used to this SNP Administration winging it at every opportunity, but it is lamentable that it is taking that approach with the education and training of our labour force.
Rather than simply point out the all-too-apparent inadequacies of the Government's approach, I will examine some of the issues that have not been addressed in detail, especially with regard to further education colleges, which are a particular interest of mine.
Scotland's FE colleges provide training for around 360,000 people every year, 24 per cent of whom come from deprived backgrounds. Interestingly, because of the number of adult modern apprenticeships, the average age of students is 32. The colleges are the base for reskilling and retraining, which is reflected in their presence across the country. Unfortunately, thanks to funding council decisions, the provision for City and Guilds qualifications and modern apprenticeships to be delivered through our colleges has not grown for eight years. Even so, FE colleges offer the widest range of modern apprenticeship opportunities in the country.
Again, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's report from four years ago specifically recommended that modern apprenticeships should not be restricted to SVQs but should include City and Guilds qualifications and other qualifications. That recommendation was specifically rejected by the then Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Jim Wallace.
I bow to Mr Neil's knowledge—I was not aware that that was the case.
At the moment, according to the information that I have been given by colleges, it seems that the small amounts of money that are being assigned to big issues such as knowledge transfer, employer engagement, and skills and employability will not make the required difference.
Scotland's FE colleges are key players, and must be recognised as such. As previous speakers have said, they have not been included in the discussions to the extent that they should have been. However, the Government could take a number of steps to enhance the role of colleges. It could extend the current bursary scheme, incentivise training in modern apprenticeships by creating all-age business bursaries, and match resources for the modernisation of the non-advanced vocational curriculum with those committed to the curriculum for excellence. The Government could use colleges to promote and enhance the role of associate professionals in areas such as life sciences and develop colleges' role in the two-way exchange of new knowledge. Further, transferring the adult careers advice function to colleges could produce a better focus, given the level of the people with whom that service engages.
In short, we must ask the Government to come back with some indication of how the issues that have been raised during this debate will be tackled more effectively. I hope that we get more than the motherhood-and-apple-pie approach that we have had so far from this SNP Government.
As Murdo Fraser said in his opening remarks—at least, in the second part of his opening remarks—the Scottish Conservatives have been concerned about the need to develop a more consistent and coherent skills and training strategy. I will conclude our contribution to this debate by picking out what we see as the main priorities.
It is abundantly clear that there is an overriding objective to provide a workforce that is fit for the challenges of the 21st century and which allows Scotland to develop its full economic potential and ability to compete successfully in the international community. However, we cannot ignore the concerns of around a third of employers in Scotland that many workers are still poorly prepared for work.
The Government has recently set out its intention to focus more on basic skills in school testing, which is warmly welcome. However, in no way can that be expected to solve all the problems, and it is essential that we identify the other reforms that must accompany that move, including, as Richard Baker, Jeremy Purvis and Murdo Fraser said, the production of a much more robust skills strategy than the one that was presented to us previously.
I do not frequent the Conservatives' website, but a submission to the United Kingdom shadow cabinet that has been placed on it states:
"The current supply-led structure (overly influenced by the providers of training) would be transformed into a demand-led framework."
I am genuinely interested in the Conservatives' position. Do they believe in a volume-based, supply-side approach to skills development or in a demand-led approach, led by individuals and employers?
Like any good Conservative, I am interested in the market economy and how supply and demand come together. There are two sides to the issue, so, as John Park identified, it is vital that we do not listen only to what the needs are.
One of the great problems in the skills debate has been that, for too long and too often, it has been focused on one sector of the education system. One of the major difficulties is ensuring that people who are talented when it comes to vocational skills have the ability to use those talents and are not prevented from doing so because of society's attitude to university education and so on. I hope that when the cabinet secretary considers her examination reforms, she also considers a much more flexible system in schools, so that different situations have parity of esteem and youngsters are able to leave school after the age of 14 and get apprenticeships. That is an important issue, and it is excellent that John Park is bringing forward a bill that will enable us to debate it.
I pay tribute to the Scottish colleges, which have a vital role to play. They are to be complimented on their efforts to provide our young people with a much more career-focused programme, which gives them a head start.
We need a robust strategy, and we need direction. There is a complaint that the new skills agency does not yet have permanent staffing and that its objectives have not been laid out. It is essential that those concerns are addressed. As many members have said, it is incumbent on the Government to come forward with its proposals. The sooner that that happens, the better.
Although the Conservatives welcome many aspects of the debate and will support the Labour motion, we believe that we must get the message firmly across to the Government and to the wider public that we expect some leadership on skills issues.
The debate has centred on the fundamental premise of whether Government should adopt a supply-led, centrally controlled approach that is heavily influenced by training providers, or a skills agenda that is responsive to employers and is demand-led, and in which the individual learner and their needs drive policy.
The SNP recognises the need for skills and training to be aligned with the Government's economic strategy, as Alex Neil said. We have set out our vision for a smarter Scotland, and the first ever lifelong skills strategy. The previous Government had eight years and produced no skills strategy. As Elizabeth Smith referred to, our skills strategy is cradle to grave, and should be seen in that light. I have been delighted by the feedback and support from stakeholders, employers, learning providers and awarding bodies in relation to not only the skills strategy but our increase of 1,000 additional construction and engineering modern apprenticeships and our introduction of a life sciences MA.
Liz Cameron, the executive director of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce said:
"It is one of the best documents we have seen and reflected what we have been asking for."
Skills expert Professor Ewart Keep was reported as saying:
"In my native England a clapped-out old model, born out of a Cold War mentality, is still considered roadworthy … The misalignment highlights the limitations of a ‘supply side only' approach to skills … Scotland has joined a small club of nations that are thinking in 21st-century terms about the skills issue."
Dr Peter Hughes, the chief executive of Scottish Engineering, said:
"Scottish Engineering welcomes the Government's approach in emphasising the importance of Modern Apprenticeships in the Construction and Engineering Sectors."
We believe that it is not appropriate to import Gordon Brown's volume-driven approach wholesale into Scotland. We face different challenges in Scotland, and we must ensure that our skills interventions are tailored and appropriate for Scotland.
Will the minister confirm to the Parliament whether bodies such as the Scottish Food and Drink Federation are pleased with her approach?
Improve, the food and drink sector skills council, is pleased that we are introducing level 2 modern apprenticeships because it recognises the importance of access into the industry. We are adopting a flexible approach to modern apprenticeships, which it welcomes.
Alan Wilson, the outgoing chief executive of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, said:
"Often there is too much emphasis in this country on bits of paper and arbitrary numerical targets for modern apprentices, and not enough on the skills that a qualification actually gives the person, or how it serves the needs of employers."
If the Labour Party's approach to skills was so successful, why does Scotland's economic growth rate lag behind the rest of the UK and why, despite higher levels of skills in the workplace, does our productivity lag behind the rest of the UK?
Other parties in the chamber may want more of the same, but they will find that in the world outside, many people recognise the need to break out of the cosy world of stockpiling skills qualifications at any cost, with no regard to their use or sector. We want modern apprenticeships in construction; other parties want modern apprenticeships in dog grooming. We want modern apprenticeships in engineering; they want modern apprenticeships for nail technicians. Important though nail technicians are, they will not drive the economy forward.
Is the cabinet secretary aware that in the Borders, training provision for construction is being operated under a temporary crisis contract because of the confusion after Scottish Enterprise Borders moved away from that training? SEB did not realise that it had people providing training, who had to be laid off. When will there be a permanent contract for that provision in the Borders?
Skills Development Scotland, which has the same training departments as Scottish Enterprise had, is taking forward the contracts.
When?
Members have asked for evidence. I will put reports in the Scottish Parliament information centre that outline the issues.
In a survey of 2,400 employers, 70 per cent said that adult modern apprenticeships made no difference to the number of people being employed. Modern apprenticeships are extremely expensive. With failure to complete rates of 30 to 40 per cent, is that an effective use of public money?
As part of the review of the national programmes, I am asking Skills Development Scotland to discuss with the tourism, food and drink, and retail sectors what form and format qualifications should take. It is important to stress that carrying on regardless, and taking on expensive four-year contracts, would have prevented the Government from implementing the changes that are needed to provide training that is fit for purpose.
We are taking Scotland forward and we have a challenging skills agenda. However, complacency and the supply-driven approach to the skills sector taken not just by the previous Government in Scotland but by Gordon Brown will not produce the changes that we need. We need Scottish solutions for a Scottish skills system. We are providing leadership that is welcomed outside the chamber. I hope that in the months and years ahead it will start to be welcomed inside it.
It has been an interesting debate. The SNP has told us that its skills strategy is universally acclaimed. In reality, it was rushed out over the summer months to meet a 100-day target—which, incidentally, it did not meet. There was little or no consultation with key stakeholders. Of course, no one in their right mind would oppose the principle of a skills strategy, particularly one that does not say anything or compel them to do anything.
I say as gently as I can to those members who pointed out that I welcomed the skills strategy in a John Swinneyesque manner that perhaps they should do their research. If they did, they would see that I welcomed the fact that there was a skills strategy but that, like the majority of members, I welcomed virtually nothing that was in it.
Maureen Watt spoke about skills utilisation. Effective skills utilisation is fundamental to ensuring that Scotland meets the economic challenges of the future. Yes, Scotland has a more highly skilled workforce than other parts of the UK, but that is no excuse for not having positive Government intervention. The fundamental challenge in Scotland is the same as that in the rest of the UK: people leaving work and people having to develop new skills in an increasingly competitive global market. In Scotland, 1 million people will leave the job market in the next 10 years. Those people will have to be replaced with 1 million people with even higher-level skills. More than 70 per cent of people currently in work will still be in work in 20 years' time.
It is not about choosing between increasing the number of higher-skilled people and utilising those with good skills in a more effective way; it is about doing both those things. I am not convinced, however, that the SNP Government will do either of them. The SNP is quite clear that it is prepared to let the markets dictate the skills profile of this country. That flawed strategy is doomed to fail. The free-market approach to skills is the fundamental reason why we have skills shortages in so many key areas, such as construction, as my colleague Marilyn Livingstone highlighted earlier.
I hear what the member says, but is it not also the case that, in a supply-driven strategy, we end up with, for example, far too many lawyers who cannot get a traineeship?
That was a timely intervention, because I was going to say that it is not about supply versus demand, as Fiona Hyslop said; it is about stimulating demand. If the Government does not believe in targets, why has it set a target for 50,000 training places? I am confused by that. After this debate, we are even less clear about who the Government will be training, what the training will look like, who will benefit and who is in and who is out. Given Maureen Watt's declaration last week that walking to school will count towards physical education, I will be thinking twice about doing a bit of DIY at the weekend just in case it counts towards the SNP's 50,000 training places.
We have heard a lot about adult apprenticeships from my colleagues Richard Baker, David Whitton and Rhona Brankin, and from Jeremy Purvis. There is no doubt that the SNP Government has slashed the number of adult apprenticeships, however we look at it. That will lead to less, not more, training by employers overall. How that will improve productivity is anyone's guess. The lack of consultation on the changes to adult apprenticeships has left training providers high and dry.
Of course we need to expand key sectors such as construction and engineering, but we should not do so at the expense of IT, for example, where there are equally damaging skills shortages.
I have real concerns about the future of the apprenticeship system overall, but perhaps there is light at the end of the tunnel. I think that what Christopher Harvie said indicates that he supports the stimulating-the-supply side of the argument. I was particularly pleased to hear that Alex Neil and Nicola Sturgeon—I am glad that she has just joined us—welcome Steven Purcell's plans for Glasgow City Council to offer apprenticeships to all school leavers this year as part of the Commonwealth games legacy. I look forward to Mr Neil and Ms Sturgeon supporting my modest proposals for a bill that will enable all suitably qualified 16 to 18-year-olds to gain a modern apprenticeship, which I will bring to the Parliament over the next few months. I hope that their enthusiasm will convert other SNP members to the cause.
The Parliament should be in no doubt that Scotland is lagging behind the UK in skills policy. The expansion of the train to gain programme in England, which gives workers the right to paid time off for training, means that there are more opportunities for workers in England to upskill. The expansion of the apprenticeship programme down south for adults and young people will mean that skills shortages will decrease and people will be able to retrain to sustain employment.
We just do not know where the SNP stands on skills. That is why our motion calls for further parliamentary scrutiny of the SNP skills strategy. I am pleased that members from other parties have said that they will support the motion. The unilateral decision by this minority Government to demolish adult apprenticeships also requires closer scrutiny. It is only right that ministers bring to the chamber the rationale for such an ill-thought-out plan. If they choose not to do so, I assure them that not only the Government but a generation of Scottish workers will suffer the consequences.