Chamber and committees

Good morning, minister, and thank you for your opening remarks. I want to extend the discussion a little around labour and the gaps in skills and training. As you said, it is difficult to predict where some of the gaps are going to be, but there are some clear instances where we know exactly what is needed now and what will be needed in the future. There are some areas where we have clearly identified the problem and the digital skills gap that you have mentioned is one of those areas.

We already know from the construction industry that in order to meet its net zero targets it will need 22,500 additional members in its labour force over the next few years, and we also know that in the just transition away from hydrocarbons, whether that be in energy or other sectors, there will be significant requirements for agility and flexibility.

I have a couple of questions in that respect. First, how do we ensure that we meet the need for the additional workforce numbers in construction? Secondly, with regard to just transition, how do we ensure that the uptake of the skills and training opportunities that we are planning for and which are in train will be effective in delivering the changes that we need?

Thank you—that was really helpful.

Perhaps I can dig a little deeper into your opening remarks, in which you talked about the diversification that many businesses undertook so that they could provide the things that we needed during the pandemic. Obviously there were financial incentives for them to do that as well as a moral imperative. Many of us would argue that there are similar imperatives around just transition.

You said that some people choose to reskill and retrain, perhaps particularly in energy and away from hydrocarbon energy intensive industries. There is a role for the funding and support of training and reskilling, and for courses to enable people to get the skills for the future economy. However, is there also something around incentivising people so that choice becomes easier to make?

There is something about labour market workers feeling that they have no choice and no power in all this. Is there something that we can be thinking about and implementing to support people? We talk about the labour market and the workforce as amorphic things, but they contain people, members of communities and individuals with hopes and dreams. That often gets lost in some of the planning, and sometimes even in the implementation. How do we bridge that gap?

Thank you for that, Chris.

That is really helpful. I see from the chat that Chris Birt wants to come in as well, so I will hand over to him, and then I will ask Angela O’Hagan to come in.

Thank you. That is very helpful.

I know that we have heard a lot, so I am sorry for coming back in. I appreciate that this is potentially a big topic, but I would like the headlines, maybe from Angela O’Hagan.

We are talking about a multiyear resource spending review, and many of us on the committee are interested in how we engage and ensure that we get the right participation from people. Do you have any top tips or key recommendations for us to think about as we look at how to make our budget processes more participative? How can we hear from the voices that we have not been hearing from, in a way that still allows us to analyse data and gather expert evidence? Specifically, I am thinking about that in the context of the multiyear spending review.

Yes, there is a gap between the equality statement and the annex and then the level 4 data—there is something missing in between.

I will bring in Angela O’Hagan. Angela, you talked about the need for collective action. I am interested in how we break down some of the departmental silos. We have got to this point because departmental budgets have, for understandable reasons, been fiercely protected, and the connections or overlaps between them have not necessarily been seen clearly. Will you pick up on that point as it relates to the broader question?

Good morning, and thank you all for your opening remarks. It is good to hear recognition that this is, in part, a process, and that, while there have been improvements, there is still considerable work to do, especially in certain areas.

I will explore some of those areas in my initial question. I was struck by what was said about the adding-up issue and it not being understood exactly how allocations in the equalities and human rights base connect with one another or add up. I am interested in how that relates to our structural equality analysis and our understanding of where the issues are. Maybe that goes back to the cart-before-horse issue that Emma Congreve talked about.

Emma, could you start by saying a little more about where we should currently be looking for that structural equality analysis, and what we need to do to build on that for future budgets, given that we know that this budget probably does not meet all our ambitions? I am interested in your thoughts on looking at that through the lens of intersectional gender budgeting in particular.

Thank you for what you have said so far and the information that you have provided, cabinet secretary. I have some questions about employability and skills. Will you give us an update on how the youth guarantee is going? How successful has it has been, particularly in reaching young people who have been dramatically impacted by the pandemic? How can we ensure that we continue to support young people, not only through the pandemic, but beyond it?

One of our concerns, as Fiona Hyslop has already mentioned, is the asymmetry of power as it applies to the balance between communities at a very local, if not regional, level. I appreciate what you say. It may be too early to identify examples of issues arising, but are you or your officials looking at a specific area of work to ensure that we do not lose very specific community-focused development opportunities that may not apply or relate to some of the broader principles and broader examples that would be done on a bigger geographical level?