Chamber and committees

Good morning, James. It is nice to see you again.

One thing that has struck me, both from the visits that the committee has made and from our wider engagement with business, is that we have major issues with skills shortages in Scotland, particularly in areas such as the green economy. We continually hear from employers that we do not have the throughput of people with the skills they need in science, technology, engineering and mathematics and in technical subjects. There is a huge black hole that will stymie our opportunity as a country to maximise those economic opportunities, and some of that comes back to the availability of apprenticeships.

I know that you do not want to talk about the funding issue per se, but what is your sense of where we are with the availability of apprenticeship places and the opportunity and demand? Some employers have been telling us that, when they advertise for apprentices, they get a huge volume of applications and they cannot take all the people who apply. There seems to be a mismatch between the number of apprenticeship places that are being offered and the opportunity and demand for them.

Good morning. I think that you were here for the previous session. I want to ask you the same questions that I asked James Withers, the first of which is about the demand for apprentices. As a committee and as individuals who go around businesses all the time, we have picked up that there is a huge demand in the economy for skills, especially in relation to issues around the green economy, where we are seeing a rising demand, which we are not meeting with the skills that we are providing.

Part of the answer to that lies in apprentices. It seems to be the case that the level of demand for apprenticeships is not being met by the supply, which is related to issues of funding. I am interested to get your perspective on where we are with the question of supply and demand. Do we need to do much more to meet that demand?

You mentioned graduate apprenticeships. I met some graduate apprentices when I was doing one of my visits during Scottish apprenticeship week, and it strikes me that the graduate apprenticeship is an absolute win-win. It provides people with on-the-job training, they come out with a degree and they do not leave after four years of studying with a pile of debt. Instead, they have had four years of employment and earning, and the employer gets somebody with work experience. However, James Withers told us that there are more graduate apprenticeships in Manchester than there are in the whole of Scotland. What is the barrier to us expanding something that seems to be an absolutely perfect fit to meet the needs of the economy?

Thank you. I have one more question, which is on the apprenticeship levy. The issue keeps being raised with us by employers who are frustrated that they put money into the apprenticeship levy but do not see any return on it. Do you have a view on how we can create better transparency around where that money comes from?

Okay. Thanks.

Thank you. That is helpful.

The Government is taking forward a bill that is about shifting funding to the Scottish Funding Council, which will then be responsible for all post-school training. I think that that is in line with your suggestion. You will be very familiar—as we all are—with the crisis in university funding that we have right now. We have seen that in Dundee and we are seeing it at other universities—the University of Edinburgh is making cuts. At the same time, colleges are coming up with similar complaints. Is there not a risk that, by putting all the funding together in one place, we will see the apprenticeship funding being raided to fill the black hole in the universities?

The Scottish Information Commissioner, David Hamilton, made that point to the committee when he came to give evidence a few weeks ago—namely, that even he could not properly get a handle on how many public bodies there are in Scotland, despite the role that his office has in securing freedom of information.

Dr Gill, in your 2023 report on creating new public bodies, “When should public bodies exist? Rewriting the ‘three tests’ for when government does things at arm’s length”, you challenged the idea that they should be created only as a last resort. Can you explain your thinking?

Dr Lamont, I have a specific question about your paper. First, however, do have you any thoughts on that broader question?

You co-wrote a paper with Pamela Cox and Maurice Sunkin on the case for the Victims Commissioner for England and Wales. That is relevant because, right now, this Parliament is discussing a proposed victims and witnesses commissioner for Scotland. I think that the convener sits on the committee that is considering that bill, although I do not.

I read the paper with interest, and what really struck me was your conclusion. Forgive me for paraphrasing, and correct me if I have this wrong but, in effect, you put the question: if the new commissioner is not to be given statutory powers, is it really worth having him or her? For the benefit of the committee, will you elaborate a little on your thinking in reaching that conclusion?

Good morning, panel. Alison Payne has reminded me that Reform Scotland published an excellent paper last year on parliamentary reform. I cannot quite remember who wrote it, but I commend it to colleagues.

To come back to the issue that I want to pursue, we already have set criteria for the creation of new SPCB-supported bodies. This committee’s purpose is to consider whether the criteria are still fit for purpose. I want to start by asking you all for your views on the criteria that need to be set. Are the existing criteria fit for purpose? If not, how do we ensure that, to address some of the concerns that you have raised, we are not overlapping functions that could be done by other bodies?