Chamber and committees

The Government’s own analysis shows that most newly qualified teachers in Scotland are no longer getting permanent jobs: 2,294 newly qualified teachers completed their probation, but only 25 per cent of them have secured permanent posts. The Educational Institute of Scotland’s general secretary, Andrea Bradley, says that the figures that have been released

“confirm that the Scottish Government has absolutely failed in the delivery of their 2021 manifesto commitment”.

After 19 years of this Scottish National Party Government, why have ministers spectacularly failed in their workforce planning and in the pledge that they made to parents, professionals and young people? What does the First Minister say to young, qualified teachers in Scotland who are considering leaving our country because of this Government’s disastrous education workforce planning?

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to address the reported issues with teacher job shortages, caused by temporary teacher contracts. (S6F-04602)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to address the reported issues with teacher job shortages, caused by temporary teacher contracts. (S6F-04602)

The Government’s own analysis shows that most newly qualified teachers in Scotland are no longer getting permanent jobs: 2,294 newly qualified teachers completed their probation, but only 25 per cent of them have secured permanent posts. The Educational Institute of Scotland’s general secretary, Andrea Bradley, says that the figures that have been released

“confirm that the Scottish Government has absolutely failed in the delivery of their 2021 manifesto commitment”.

After 19 years of this Scottish National Party Government, why have ministers spectacularly failed in their workforce planning and in the pledge that they made to parents, professionals and young people? What does the First Minister say to young, qualified teachers in Scotland who are considering leaving our country because of this Government’s disastrous education workforce planning?

When the cabinet secretary and other colleagues visited the old eye pavilion at my invitation, he would have heard that patient records are currently in paper form. Given the closure of the eye pavilion and the fact that those records had to be stored in halls and distributed around temporary services, will the digitisation of patient records and scans be taken into account in the design of and funding for the new hospital?

That is exactly why we need more transparency on where the funding has gone. I am sure that Mr Mason would support that principle, especially given his work on different Scottish Parliament committees. Transparency around public funds is surely something that we all agree on and would want to strengthen our systems in regard to.

Having listened to ministers and the reasoning behind their not supporting my amendment 123 at stage 2, I have tried to help them and, therefore, have lodged a suite of amendments that seek to provide different options to improve annual reporting on the apprenticeship levy and how it is spent in Scotland.

Amendment 87 would insert a requirement for the Scottish ministers, each financial year, to

“seek information from the United Kingdom government on the amount of funding provided through the block grant adjustment as a result of the apprenticeship levy established by Part 6 of the Finance Act 2016.”

Amendment 88 would establish an annual report on the use of apprenticeship levy funding in Scotland. Each financial year, the Scottish ministers would have to

“prepare a report on the use of funding allocated to skills and training that is derived from”

the associated block grant adjustment. The report would include

“the total amount of funding allocated by the Scottish Ministers that was derived from the block grant adjustment associated with the apprenticeship levy”

in each financial year.

Perhaps most importantly, and I do not see why ministers would not support this, amendment 90 would provide annual reporting on funding for skills and training, which would deliver better understanding of where the apprenticeship levy is going—where it is being spent, Mr Mason. The amendment sets out that

“The Scottish Ministers must, for each financial year, prepare a report on the use of funding allocated for skills and training.”

Why is that important? Previously, colleges have benefited from the flexible workforce development fund, for example, which was positively evaluated and provided a great return on investment, using funding from Scotland’s share of the levy. I believe that more transparency would allow colleges and employers to see the returns that come to Scotland, where the levy is being both raised and spent, and the additional opportunities that are being created for learners.

The amendments in this group deal with the levy and are really important. I know that from debates and from questions that I have asked, specifically when the Deputy First Minister has been in the chamber. In response to one of my questions, she said that the Scottish Government is not against more transparency about, and scrutiny of, the apprenticeship levy, so I hope that the Government will support my amendments.

I move amendment 87.

I have not found the minister’s arguments convincing. He will have heard from Green, Liberal, Democrat, Labour and Conservative MSPs at committee that we want more transparency. The Scottish Parliament’s mace, which is in front of us, has the four words “Wisdom”, “Justice”, “Compassion” and “Integrity”, but maybe “Transparency” should also be there.

The Government had an opportunity to work with us to lodge amendments, but somehow it has not done that work. I would have thought that ministers would be able to support amendment 90 because it gives them the opportunity to provide transparency to Parliament that we do not currently have. Because of that, it is down to members of the public and politicians in Opposition parties to submit freedom of information requests to find out what money HMRC has given the Scottish Government and where the Scottish Government has allocated that money.

There is still £171 million that Scottish businesses have expected to be spent on the delivery of apprenticeships that has not been spent on that, and there is no transparency about where that money is.

The Conservative members are supportive of amendment 10, but I want to ask the minister whether it is the Scottish Government’s vision that it will make colleges lead delivery providers for modern apprenticeships under the bill, with a minimum percentage of apprenticeships delivered through colleges as part of the “college first” principle that I tried to progress at stage 2.

We have not got to Willie Rennie’s amendment on the issue yet, but I think that the minister is almost making the argument against it, as it would introduce another sub-committee structure. Is that not the case? What industry is concerned about is that, by being just part of a wider conversation in that sub-committee, its voice and needs could be lost in translation. That is why we think that a version of SAAB should be retained.

Amendment 75 goes to the heart of some of the concerns that the Education, Children and Young People Committee has heard. Industries and businesses that are desperate for apprenticeships do not feel that the current system is delivering for them. However, their voice is not going to be specifically included. As the minister did, I pay tribute to SAAB for the work that it has done but, if that board is not fundamentally at the heart of the bill, the voice of industry and business will be lost.