Chamber and committees

I will dig a bit further into the minister’s comment about a commissioner being one voice among many. I am interested in how we can have effective advocacy, and whether that could happen by expanding the role of the Scottish Human Rights Commission to take on advocacy, so that we do not need a separate victims commissioner, a children’s commissioner, an older people’s commissioner and so on.

Another proposal that has come across our desks is having ministerial portfolios for each of those areas. There would be roles such as a minister for older people, a minister for disabled people and so on. I am curious about your thoughts on that proposal. There are two aspects to my question. First, do you think that that would make for an effective way of advocating, which would also allow the entire Parliament to hold the responsible person to account?

Secondly, one of the criticisms that has been levelled at us throughout the evidence is that, when the Scottish Government creates a new commissioner, it is dodging responsibility, because the Government is then able to say, “The commissioner is doing that—it is not us.” Would having ministers for X, who would be responsible for advocacy under that portfolio, bring that responsibility back on board and solve that problem? Are there any disadvantages to that?

How would you respond to the accusation that, by creating a commission, the Government is dodging responsibility, because the commission, rather than the ministers, is now to be accountable?

I have two hypotheses as to why we have seen a proliferation in the number of commissioners. The first is that it is in reaction to problems that we have had in the public sector, such as specific scandals around patients or victims of crime. The second is that it is more politically glamorous to create a new thing and to say, “Look, I have made a new thing. I have solved your problem,” rather than tweaking or adjusting existing powers or resources. I think that that means that we have been reactionary and have put in place commissioners to try to bandage up problems, rather than looking at how problems may be prevented.

The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman told us that it has been asking for investigative powers for a while, which would allow it to potentially identify problems in the public sector before they become scandals. That would avoid commissioners being created after the fact because we were reacting to something negative that had happened.

What is your view on the role of public bodies in that prevention and investigative space? Do you have an appetite for moving our public sector to a more preventative space, which would require additional powers for groups such as the ombudsman and the Scottish Human Rights Commission and so on?

I have two more questions and will try to be quick.

Although the committee has not made any decisions yet, we may make recommendations that require primary legislation, such as a consolidation bill that would give the ombudsman the investigatory powers that it has been asking for and that would empower the Scottish Human Rights Commission, in a way that it is not currently empowered, to cover some advocacy issues. A bill might also consolidate the functions of some existing SPCB-supported bodies with those of some proposed ones. What is the Scottish Government’s appetite for that sort of primary legislation?

We have heard that—we heard last week that 34 per cent of university graduates do not use their degrees. Does it represent a national waste of resources if we are using educational resources to train people?

And you do not perceive any particular barriers there.

I will pick up some themes that were brought up earlier during the framing discussion. Throughout our inquiry, we have heard from employers about their frustration with colleges’ lack of flexibility. For example, an employer might have an apprentice starting in January, but they cannot start their college course until September, or, if a lecturer is not available on a certain day, the students might have to go into college for three half days instead of one whole day, which makes their work day much more complicated.

I am interested to hear your comments on the flexibility of colleges, not only in supporting apprentices but in supporting more traditional young students and also mature students. Is our skills system via colleges flexible enough, or does something need to change?

It feels to me that there is a strong move towards workplace learning and that that is the case for every type of learning, whether it is academic or vocational learning.

I am an electromechanical engineer and I did a workplace learning scheme in North America—that is common over there, and it is starting to be more common in Scotland, with the graduate apprentices. I am interested in what you say about doing an industry placement week by week versus doing it in chunks of time, which is how we did it at my university.

Am I right about that—is workplace learning the way of the future? What barriers are there to that model? Do parents accept it? Is it the way forward for all types of learning?

Do you have any comments on colleges and flexibility, Peter?

It is, as opposed to those who are just coming out of school.