Chamber and committees

To ask the Scottish Government what cross-Government action it is taking to support island connectivity in the West Scotland region. (S6O-05388)

The minister knows well the frustrations and anger of local communities on Cumbrae and Arran and in the mainland ports because of ferry routes to Largs, Ardrossan and Troon being delayed. There is a fiasco in our ferries—I think that we all know that.

What will the minister do to rebuild the faith of those communities? It will require the physical upgrading of infrastructure, which he has referred to, which has been for too long neglected. That is what will demonstrate a long-term commitment to connecting our islands.

On the Cumbrae slipway, can the Government say what is being done to make sure that it progresses on time and on budget, with minimal disruption?

Regarding Arran, I note the First Minister’s comments that the acquisition of the harbour is at an advanced stage, but will the Government commit to ensure that any acquisition will come with an infrastructure investment plan to upgrade the harbour and reconnect Arran and Ardrossan?

Thank you, Presiding Officer. At this stage in the evening, and given the many contributions that we have heard already, I might not go beyond that generous four minutes.

It is important to pull together some of the threads that we have heard, as well as our reasoning on this side of the chamber for not supporting the bill this evening. Daniel Johnson outlined quite clearly several significant concerns that we still have around the bill and, crucially, about what it will not do for the wider skills landscape in Scotland.

I echo what colleagues have said about the minister’s efforts. I appreciate that, like me, he has come into the bill process as it has advanced. That is not always easy, but he has tried to engage. I acknowledge that, in a lot of what he has said, he recognises the challenges that will exist for a future Government.

That is the core of many of our concerns this evening. The minister spoke about technological change and facing that future challenge. The reality is that a lot of that challenge is present here and now. The jobs and industries of the future are moving at pace, not just in Scotland but internationally. We see that particularly in relation to the growth of artificial intelligence, digital tech, the defence sector and medicines. That is why we feel that, in this bill, we have missed an opportunity to make the demonstrable change that we need in training and upskilling young people, in particular, for the jobs that are already here, when other countries are perhaps moving ahead.

This evening, speakers in the debate, such as Willie Rennie, Ross Greer, Daniel Johnson and Miles Briggs, have set out a lot of the context around how we got here and all the work that has been going on ever since the Audit Scotland report, which Willie Rennie referenced, and the Withers review, with the stark challenges that it outlined. I do not think that the bill is addressing many of the wider issues that were at the heart of that.

Douglas Ross’s contribution was interesting. He posed the question about what the public think and how much they will judge this work in the election that we are about to enter into. Yes, if we knock on someone’s door, they will probably not be enthused by a technical bill such as this one, but their actual concerns would lie with the level of apprenticeship starts and the opportunities that exist for people in their communities.

I made this point in the debate on amendments. We know that learning providers requested 34,000 starts in 2024-25, compared with an actual 25,000 starts. This bill will not add a single apprenticeship—that is the reality of where we are.

I am shocked that anyone in north-east Fife would not greet Willie Rennie at the door with an embrace of joy.

He makes a fair point about our decisions having an impact. We have heard from the trade unions at SDS and from those who work in those agencies about the concern and disruption that such decisions can cause. We need to take cognisance of that, and that has very much been put on the record this evening.

As I said, I am conscious that the bill will not make the change that we want to see right now and that some of that change is being pushed down the road. We know that the reform should be rooted in the Withers review. We agreed with the central conclusion of the Withers review on the need for structural and operational reform, which we have heard so much about throughout today’s process, as well as with the creation of the single funding body, but the bill falls short with regard to skills reform. It risks becoming that cosmetic, big-bang reorganisation that Willie Rennie spoke about, by rearranging structures without addressing underlying failures that are letting people down and holding the economy back.

Fundamentally, as we have heard from across the chamber, the bill will pass this evening, but perhaps without the necessary degree of enthusiasm or vision moving forward. As I said in my contributions on amendments, the belief on this side of the chamber is that we will see change and move things forward in this area only by having a change of Government, and that will come through in the debates that we have as part of the election, which the people of Scotland are ready for.

Like Jeremy Balfour, I come late to the party in some ways. I thank him for his amendments and the intent behind them. It is important to recognise the vital element of providing support to people with additional needs. There is always a desire to do more in that regard, which was recognised widely by stakeholders, including those in the college sector, who pointed to the fact that many of our institutions are focused on ensuring that they can widen access and support young people, in particular, who have an additional support need to be engaged in courses that are really important to them. We recognise and know the funding challenges that exist, and it is important that Jeremy Balfour has brought that to the fore through his amendments.

Scottish Labour is broadly supportive of the intent behind the amendments, which were also discussed as probing amendments at stage 2. However, I have concerns about how the amendments are drafted and about the principle of putting in primary legislation something that would tie the hands of future Parliaments and Governments and, indeed, the council that will be established by the bill.

There is a broader concern about the requirement in amendment 1 to maintain funding levels. Obviously, I recognise that that is an important ambition, which, again, would command general support, but I would be keen to understand how Jeremy Balfour envisages primary legislation doing that without tying the hands of future Governments in their budgets. There might be situations in which, for a variety of reasons, colleges had to move funding around or to look at where there might be reduced demand in any given year. Would agreeing to amendment 1 mean, for example, that money would sit unspent because an institution could not spend it in a different budget line? That might be detrimental to what we are all seeking to find agreement on this afternoon.

We all agree that there is a need to provide enhanced support for those with additional support needs. I applaud Jeremy Balfour’s tenacity in pursuing the issue, but I have the general concern that legislating in the way that he proposes might not be the correct way to go about it. We must continue to work together to hold the Government of the day to account for its actions, but I think that we need to build the policy consensus rather than trying to legislate for something in primary legislation.

I will leave my comments there. I am sure that we will hear more from the minister and Mr Balfour.

That takes us back to my earlier points about things that go in the bill. I genuinely think that there are matters of policy and there are matters of legislation and, very often in this Parliament, we conflate some of those matters by thinking that we can legislate our way into ensuring that policy is done well—and, crucially, funded well.

I think that we are in concert today about whether ever-upward expansion should be something that we absolutely aspire to. I just do not know whether putting it in the bill will deliver that in its totality and in reality. I worry that it could create hostages to fortune, in a way, or that additional layers of bureaucracy might come in as a result of, for example, amendment 86’s call for labour market assessment. I would expect that to be part of any national funding strategy, which we have already debated this afternoon. Mr Kerr is shaking his head—perhaps he does not have the same faith that I do in relation to this. “Not at all,” he is saying. However, I think that that would be the expectation of whoever is sitting in the Government seats after the election. That should be a priority when looking very clearly at the funding strategy.

That brings me to my broad view of the themes in the amendments. There is clearly much more to do to get to where we want to be on apprenticeships and apprenticeship starts. I do not think that, at this stage of the parliamentary session, the bill will effect the change that we need. Members will not be surprised to hear me say that it is a change of Government that would make a difference. There are a variety of pieces of legislation at this stage of the parliamentary session that will not create the change that is required, which I am sure that we will hear more about as we proceed to the debate on the bill.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I appreciate what the minister is saying about the technical nature of the amendments. However, would he be able to put on the record a response to the concerns that Universities Scotland has expressed on the amendments and the definitions that are being used, particularly with regard to issues around conflict of interest, transparency and other considerations potentially not applying to training providers and applying only to colleges and universities? Will the minister clarify whether that was the intention and what consideration he has given to that point?

Scottish Labour welcomes the intent behind many of the amendments in the group because we have been clear that there are significant gaps in the existing apprenticeship and funding landscape. There is unmet need both for young people in the skills system and businesses that need apprenticeships.

Many of the reflections that we have heard in the debate so far are really important, not just in relation to young people in the skills system but in relation to the importance of the breadth and depth of apprenticeships across lifelong learning and across the opportunities that are provided for everyone.

We are concerned, and have been concerned for some time, about the lack of data on colleges, which means that there is not a clear understanding of how many qualified apprenticeship applicants are being turned away or how that relates to the needs that industry puts forward and advocates for. What we do know is that learning providers requested 34,000 starts in 2024-25, for example, compared with actual starts of around 25,000. We also know that there are major skills shortages across the economy. Indeed, recent research by Scottish Engineering found that 20 per cent of skills demand has been unmet due to real-terms funding cuts to apprenticeships in Scotland.

That is why we have advocated, both during the bill process and more widely, for alignment of college funding with skills need, industrial strategy and employment outcomes, and to give colleges more independence and flexibility, particularly in terms of their finances, to unlock more co-investment from industry. That is also why we are supportive of reform to skills delivery and careers advice, to empower regional collaboration and leadership to ensure that Scotland’s skills delivery matches local business needs—again, much of this has been spoken about in relation to many of the amendments. It is why we must address unmet need in Scotland’s apprenticeship system by boosting funding for apprenticeships, so that every qualified applicant in priority sectors and occupations can be guaranteed a place.

Although I welcome the intent behind the amendments in this group to increase the number and scope of apprenticeships and to deal with the lack of opportunities for many of Scotland’s young people, I have some specific concerns around amendments 43, 44 and 86 in relation to whether we should tie the hands of the council into the future to permanently expand the range and scope number. We might want to err on the side of ensuring flexibility in the system to allow the council to be responsive to the needs that will emerge and develop.

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of the statement and for the correspondence relating to joining the group.

A year ago, Audit Scotland bluntly put the challenge in context when it said that the Scottish Government had

“failed to plan effectively for its inclusive approach to additional support for learning.”

That is why, collectively, Parliament called for this further review, but I have to say that I think that many of us would have expected the review to come sooner.

Given that there is so little time left in this parliamentary session, will the cabinet secretary say when, before the dissolution of Parliament, she expects the short, sharp review, as she describes it, to report? How will she ensure that we can have a debate in the parliamentary chamber ahead of dissolution on the issues contained therein?