Chamber and committees

The unemployment rate is about 3.7 per cent in the UK, and in Scotland it is a record low of 3.2 per cent. However, is that a realistic figure? For example, we understand that the percentage of people who are economically active in Scotland is more or less the same as the percentage for the UK—it is 75.6 per cent, which is 1.1 per cent lower than the UK—but is that a realistic figure for full-time involvement in the economy? What percentage of those people are less than fully economically active and are working part time? Is there hidden unemployment? I understand that Sheffield Hallam University produced a study that showed that there are more than 1 million people who should be included in the unemployment figures but are not. What is the real picture? I think that, on paper, the picture looks rosier than is really the case. A lot of that is possibly because it is a time of huge vacancies in certain skills and there is a geographical mismatch of jobs and skilled people.

That is a fair point, but a number of organisations and people, including me, are goal and task driven, and one person or organisation might have a completely different idea of what continuous improvement means from another person or organisation. That comes back to delivery of the NPF being patchy, which is why I mentioned milestones. Is there a way in which we can, as it were, square the circle of the two philosophies so that we optimise the response that we receive for delivery of the NPF?

The next item is to take evidence from Skills Development Scotland on the trends behind the income tax forecasts. The session follows on from issues raised during our 2022-23 budget scrutiny. It also sets the scene for our pre-budget scrutiny this year, which will be informed by the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s next forecasts, which are to be published later today.

I welcome to the committee meeting Chris Brodie, director of regional skills planning and sector development, and Andrea Glass, head of regions and enabling sectors. I understand that Mr Brodie would like to make a short opening statement.

Thank you very much for that. I will start with some questions and then we will go round the table.

“Scotland’s National Strategy for Economic Transformation” was published on 1 March and includes what have been described as

“five bold new policy programmes of action”.

Those include creating an entrepreneurial nation, developing new markets and industries, enhancing productivity and innovation, skills growth, and delivering high rates of employment and wage growth. In the three months since that was published, what changes, if any, has Skills Development Scotland made to its approach in order to take on board those priorities?

There were two parts to the question. It was quite an extensive question, so I apologise for that. The other part was about part-time working. What is the situation with the proportion of people who are working part time? What is happening with regard to the geographic balance? I represent a constituency in North Ayrshire where the market is not particularly hot, relative to, for example, Edinburgh. I and other colleagues from the west of Scotland have concerns that there is an east-west divide in Scotland. There might be a north-south divide in England, but it is more of an east-west divide in Scotland. How do we address those specific challenges? We can talk about percentages for Scotland, but there are marked differences between different parts of the country, as I am sure you are aware.

The point that you make is important. The phrase “golden thread” ran through a number of submissions and was raised in oral evidence. At the workshop that we held in Dundee and from talking to Government officials and witnesses across the board, I found that there is strong backing for the national performance framework and what it is trying to achieve but there is an issue with how patchy the Government’s response can be to the way that it sets its own outcomes.

That failure to align budgets to outcomes has caused an element of frustration, which came out last week. Organisations that take the NPF seriously feel that, although they are following it, there is no real reward for aligning themselves closely with it. There is also no backlash for other organisations that are more loosely aligned with the NPF. The Government does not take that into account either. It is almost as though the Government has set the outcomes and then allowed people more or less to get on with it without any real focus on what we can do from a financial perspective to encourage more people into pursuing them. That is why we have a patchy situation across Scotland, which none of us wants. People want best practice to be followed everywhere.

How can we tighten that up a wee bit? A number of witnesses have given evidence to suggest that Government departments do not always mention the national performance framework in their own documents when they set out objectives. That makes some organisations feel that the Government is not as focused on the NPF as it says that it is or as it should be. How will the Government address those issues?

Indeed.

This is quite a serious matter because the Government has outcomes that it wants to be delivered and there will clearly be an element in Government if they are not delivered. Therefore, we should surely focus on anything that helps to achieve them.

There is also an issue with who owns the NPF. It seems to be a whole-society approach. There does not seem to be a focused driver for it. Again, people feel that it is not being prioritised as much as it was initially. It has been around now for 14 or 15 years and there is a feeling that it should be re-energised a wee bit with a focus on who is driving it so that people are aware of exactly who that is.

It is important that the national performance framework is seen to underpin such documents. It is not always easy for people who read them to second guess the Government. That might be what the Government has in mind but, if it is not there in black and white, people will wonder whether the Government is really prioritising the NPF in the way that it should. That is what I am saying about the strategy, not that it diverges in any way from the NPF.

I recall that the Improvement Service was very messianic about best practice when the sadly departed Colin Mair was at the helm.