We do miss Fergus Ewing on the Education, Children and Young People Committee, with his incisive questions about touch typing. I am sure that the world will hear his plea and respond appropriately.

There are powerful forces at play here. We have been trying to get people not to go down what we might call the traditional or academic route for a number of years, but we have failed for a number of different reasons. There is significant peer pressure in schools, societal pressure and family pressure to aspire to do better—apparently, people do not succeed unless they go to university.

Pupil choice is an important factor, too. We must ensure that young people have the choices available to meet their needs, as well as, of course, the economic needs. I have already highlighted the mismatch between those whom we are training and the needs of the economy.

We clearly need capacity in the system, too. Far too few schools have qualified staff who are able to deliver courses. Sometimes, schools do not have a local college that they can tap into through a school-college partnership. Schools might not have the equipment that they need to have available, and the guidelines are not clear, either.

There is also a shortage of STEM teachers. That situation is getting to crisis point, as we saw last week with the uptake of young trainee teachers.

Not now.

The Construction Industry Training Board highlights a lack of parity of esteem—even among those who take alternative routes such as foundation apprenticeships—between construction and other qualifications. How can we meet the challenge of reaching net zero if we do not have parity of esteem even among those who are taking foundation apprenticeships?

I have repeatedly praised my local schools and the contribution that they make, and I referred to that in my speech, too. However, the Parliament is about change and improvement, and I wish that the Government would do a little bit more of that.

I could deliver my whole speech again if the minister would like. I hear cries of “Yes”.

That is exactly my point. A substantial body—the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development—has highlighted, with evidence, that there is a challenge. Instead of addressing that issue, the minister comes up with some counter-evidence that he believes knocks down that of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. It is important that we recognise the challenges that Scottish education faces and that we address those problems, rather than dismissing evidence that is put forward by an authoritative body.

It is important to recognise when education is making progress. I go to schools almost every week, and I commend teachers and pupils for the work that they do. However, this place is about driving improvement. It is not just about self-congratulation and should not be filled with speeches, as I am sure that we will hear later, that list massive achievements when there are significant challenges that must be addressed.

Today’s motion, like the debate so far, is self-congratulatory. The superficially attractive increase in the numbers taking foundation apprenticeships and other routes is positive, but the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development was critical of the fact that the Scottish Government had hardly any substantial data on destinations, on the value that young people find in those courses, on the value that employers do or do not find in those courses or on whether there is a uniform offer across the country, particularly in rural areas or in areas that do not have a local college. Michael Marra has rightly identified the different numbers of subjects being taken in different schools and the sometimes pitiful number of courses that young people are taking. We have no real data on any of that, and we need a far more substantial body of evidence before we can spend time in this chamber congratulating ourselves on how successful we have been.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has been striking in its criticisms of the approach so far. It highlights the fact that employers feel that young people coming from school are poorly prepared for work. That story has lasted for generations, but we seem to be incapable of addressing that substantial issue. There are big gaps in recruitment, and there is an imbalance between graduates and those who take alternative routes in their education. A significant number of graduates are underemployed, because they are not employed in the areas that their education and training should help them into.

Yes, I am. I am sorry, Mr Kerr—I will not be able to take the intervention.

As far as solutions are concerned, Louise Hayward’s parity of esteem options are a potential positive way forward. The careers review is a welcome step, because I think that it would help to have a comprehensive approach to careers that includes work experience. We need some clarity for our colleges; I do not know why we are taking so long to give them clear direction with a purpose-and-principles approach. We have been dithering on that for ages, as we have on skills alignment. We should be looking to countries such as Germany, which, through its economic strength, has a great partnership between industry and the state to ensure that there is a fantastic offer for vocational study.

Those are the things that we should be looking to. We should certainly not be complacent or fill this chamber with congratulatory speeches.

Six hundred and thirty-six teaching posts were readvertised last year, many of them in STEM subjects. One technical education teacher post in Aberdeenshire was advertised 11 times. There is a big shortage. I do not get from the minister a sense of urgency and that she understands the scale of the problem. Can she reassure me that she is on top of the matter?

John Swinney is a master at defending the indefensible, but even he cannot defend this set of circumstances. He has no idea about the final cost, no idea about the final delivery dates and, apparently, he had no idea that those bonuses were being paid, even though his Government owns the yard. Therefore, what guarantee can he give that this will be the last statement of its kind about the ferries?

I strongly support the community housing trust model alongside the use of rural housing burdens. I think that it can play an important role in constituencies such as mine in the east neuk, where there is a real problem with the growth of second homes and holiday lets. However, not many councils outwith the Highland areas know about that power or those trusts. What more can the Government do to encourage the use of that model in places such as Fife?