Chamber and committees

Andrea, do you have anything to add to that?

Thank you. The session has overrun, and I realise that members have itchy feet and have other things to do. For example, John Mason, Michelle Thomson and I have another meeting that started a minute ago. We will therefore conclude the meeting and consider our work programme next week, if members agree to do so.

I thank Andrea Glass and Chris Brodie for the comprehensive evidence that they have given. There are still a few issues that we might want to touch on, so we will probably be in touch with them on those.

I thank my colleagues around the table. I will touch on one area that committee members have not covered. You talked about delivery of priorities, and one of the focal points of the national performance framework is continuous improvement. Of course, it used to be more target driven. In response to Douglas Lumsden, you talked about the need to move at pace to eliminate child poverty.

You have said that you want the outcomes to be delivered in a less patchy form. However, if we have continuous improvement, what does that mean? Does that mean that the Government is satisfied with an improvement rate of 1 per cent a year, 5 per cent, 10 per cent or something else? If we are not going to return to having targets, would milestones be a more effective way of assessing where we are in reaching each outcome? Would that enable you to incentivise and encourage organisations that might not be doing as well as they could be?

I asked about part-time work not only because many people prefer it but because a lot of people do not feel that there is a full-time job in the area for which they are qualified or in which they are skilled. With regard to skills, I visited one of the major employers in my constituency during national apprentice week, and a number of apprentices to whom I talked all said the same thing to me. When they were thinking about a career post-school, they were told by their careers advisers, “If you don’t go to university, you’re a failure.” If one person says that to you, you take it as anecdotal, but if a whole wheen of people say the same thing, you have to think, “There’s an issue there.”

In your opening statement, you said that you have 800 careers advisers in Scottish schools. What kind of message is being given to younger people? We are trying to build more houses in Scotland, for example, but we need more roofers, plasterers, electricians, plumbers—you name it—as well as engineering skills blah blah blah. If everyone goes to university, there will be a shortage of people to go into apprenticeships, particularly as we do not have the same number of migrants coming into the country and the birth rate is at an historic low. Are we not facing a perfect storm in the years ahead?

Good morning, and welcome to the 17th meeting in 2022 of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. Our first agenda item is the final evidence session as part of our inquiry into the national performance framework: ambitions into action. I welcome the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Covid Recovery, John Swinney. Mr Swinney is accompanied by Scottish Government officials Barry Stalker, head of the national performance framework unit, and Caroline Dodds, team leader in the national performance framework unit. I welcome you all to the meeting.

I invite Mr Swinney to make a short opening statement.

I probably put that quite crudely. It is not really about penalising organisations. It is probably about being more favourably disposed towards the ones that have engaged and accepted your encouragement, Deputy First Minister.

Thank you for that. It has set my mind ticking over with a number of things but, to reassure my colleagues who are now panicking at the prospect of another myriad of questions from me, it does not mean that I will ask too many more.

I point out that one of the pleasing aspects of the evidence that we took was that the third and private sectors were supportive of, and, indeed, enthusiastic about, the national performance framework. You talked about recovery, poverty and having to address the climate emergency. Fife Council said that it prioritised those three outcomes. There was concern about there being perhaps too many outcomes when we should focus on three, four or five certain ones, not the 11 that we have.

You talked about the importance of the economy but “Scotland’s National Strategy for Economic Transformation” has only two references to the national performance framework. There is no alignment with national outcomes. If the Government is trying to ensure that everything is cross-cutting and working to the same agenda, an important document such as that should surely have taken greater cognisance of the national performance framework.

I realise that I asked quite a lot of questions, but there are a couple of points that you have not responded to. Can you say something about the age profile of people leaving Scotland and whether you are including other parts of the UK when you talk about people going overseas? I do not know what the word, “overseas” means in the submission—does it mean people leaving Scotland or does it mean people going beyond the United Kingdom?

Attracting people to Scotland when a lot of people are leaving Scotland is like trying to fill a sink with the plug out. Surely, retaining people in Scotland is half the battle, and it is particularly important because, I believe, a disproportionate number of educated and highly skilled people are leaving. I know a number of people who have got, for example, a son who is an oncologist in Scotland or an information technology consultant in Boston—I do not mean Boston in Lincolnshire; I mean Boston in the States. Scotland continues to export an incredible number of talented people. We need to think about retention as well as attraction.

I want to talk about loads of things, but I will not, because colleagues want to come in. I will ask one final thing before I open the discussion out to colleagues, because there is so much to get our teeth into.

In your submission, you mentioned that

“The number of inactive people ‘discouraged’ has risen sharply during the pandemic but is starting to fall.”

I wondered what “discouraged” meant, so I looked at footnote 22, which says that it means,

“Those who are not looking for work because they believe no jobs are available.”

I find that point astonishing given that we have record levels of vacancies in the economy and that every aspect of the economy seems to have a chronic shortage. For example, the airports—not so much in Scotland but south of the border—have been clogged up, not just because of shortages of air crew but also of people in security and baggage handling posts. One would think that those vacancies would require all levels of skill. Where are we on that discouragement? Is the situation continuing or subsiding?

I have one final question about productivity. Reports differ on whether working from home increases productivity or decreases it and on whether a hybrid model is actually the best of both worlds. What is Skills Development Scotland’s view on that point?

I have forgotten as well, now that I think about it. It was just about discouragement and so on—I was asking about what is being done. No—you have answered that one.

The second one—that is the thing when you think on your feet and do not write things down—[Interruption.] It was about working from home. Has Skills Development Scotland carried out research on which model is more productive—working from home, working in the office or a hybrid model of the two?