Chamber and committees

I have one final question, somewhat related to that. You mentioned that economic inactivity rates have gone up in part because of the high number of young people in Scotland who are in FE and HE. The net result of that is that we have, on the whole, a highly educated population and yet one of the most perennial bits of feedback that we get from employers—I remember it from 10-plus years ago, when I was at the senior phase of high school, and it is still the case now—is not just that they cannot find the young people but that they cannot find the people with the right skills.

Leaving aside specific skills shortages such as not being able to find enough qualified plumbers, electricians or radiographers, for example, the other element is general employability skills, such as the ability to work as part of a team, good communication skills and so on.

I realise that this is a very broad question, but, when we have such a highly educated population, with such high levels of participation in not just the senior phase of high school but in FE and HE, why do we have this perennial issue of employers saying that the skills are just not there?

I am an enthusiastic supporter of the idea that education is not just about employability—people go into FE and HE for all sorts of reasons—but it still seems odd that we have this disconnect. We have huge participation in further and higher education and yet we have employers saying that the skills are still not there.

I would love to get into more detail on that, but I would be at risk of wearing my other committee—which was called the Education and Skills Committee—hat. Perhaps another time.

You referred to the “ethos” of the NPF, which relates to the feedback from the focus groups. The group that Daniel Johnson and I spoke to ended up landing on the word “implicit” when we asked about how their organisational plans and strategies align with the NPF. On the whole, the people we were speaking to, who were from a variety of public bodies, were not chief executives and senior managers. The folk we were speaking to were much closer to the level of delivery, and my interpretation of that word “implicit” was that, for them, rather than it being about rhyming off the specific outcomes and how they are contributing to them, the NPF is a set of guiding principles that shape the culture in their organisation .

When we are talking about the level of practitioners, is that approach of being guided and having your broad approach shaped by the NPF—rather than being able to list of specific outcomes—satisfactory? Is that what the Government wants to achieve, or are you trying to achieve a deeper, more specific level of understanding?

I am keen to get into some other points of substance. However, given that you have raised the 22-days proposal, which I asked the commissioner’s office about last week, I am interested in your perspective. My understanding was that we could not, through regulation, address the proposal that the officials laid out. The specifics of what they asked for would have to be addressed through primary legislation or, indeed, are entirely outwith the scope of the Scottish Parliament, given that we are talking about an English High Court order.

Thank you. I am keen to come back in if there is time, convener. However, I will be happy to leave it there for now, because I know that other members would like to ask questions.

When I discussed the role of the advocate with the children’s commissioner’s office, my presumption was that the advocate would be the most likely route through which ministers would become aware of a concern, but you will be aware that the children’s commissioner’s office has asked why that would be an advocate rather than specifically legal representation. I assume that, in a number of cases, the advocate might well be someone with relevant legal qualifications anyway, but that is not guaranteed. Can you expand a bit on why the regulations do not give those young people guaranteed legal representation? That could be provided alongside the advocate, since the commissioner’s office acknowledged that the advocate can play a really powerful role. However, given that the young people are unlikely to be entirely familiar with their rights under English law, never mind Scots law, there is a need for clear understanding of what their rights are under the Scottish system.

That is really helpful. I will move on to some specific points of substance.

Part of the regulations give Scottish ministers the power to pursue the placing authority if it has breached various conditions. A reasonable question from the children’s commissioner was how ministers would become aware that there was an issue in the first place, and specifically how the young person might be able to notify ministers that there was a problem that would justify the Government’s pursual of the placing authority. Can you respond to that? How would someone be in a situation to actually make use of that power?

I understand that the proposed bill would provide us with a significant opportunity to make improvements in this area. I do not object to the regulations; it is better for us to agree to them than not to do so. However, I am still not clear on one point. Given that you have included a number of additional safeguards and conditions, why would this one not have worked? Before you published the regulations, had the children’s commissioner raised with you the proposal for there to have been at least an adequacy rating in the previous six months?

I echo the convener’s thanks for the minister’s letter, which was useful in preparation for the meeting. Once regulations are laid, they cannot be amended—Parliament can make a judgment on them or they can be withdrawn. That presents us with questions of process before we get into the substance.

The commissioner’s office has presented us with proposed alternatives. If the Government adopted them, they would require the withdrawal of the existing regulations and the laying of new regulations. That begs a question about process. Did the commissioner’s office have specific knowledge of the regulations that you intended to bring forward? Obviously, you had engaged with the office on the broad principles, but, before those regulations were laid and published, had the commissioner’s office been given a draft of the regulations or a summary of the specific policy intentions? If that was the case, did the commissioner’s office come back to you at that point with something equivalent to the list of alternatives that it provided to us?

I am trying to understand how we have ended up in a place where alternatives are coming forward from the commissioner’s office but regulations have already been published, so we cannot amend them in order to accept those alternatives, even if we were minded to.

Thank you. That is extremely helpful.