 The next item of business is a debate in motion 10922 in the name of Daniel Johnson on ensuring Scotland's skills system is fit for the future. I would invite those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the question to speak button, and Daniel Johnson to speak too to move the motion up to six minutes. The skills debate has never been more prominent nor important and that is not just because recent publications and reports here in Scotland. When we look globally, we see demographic change, meaning that we need to do more with a smaller, engaging working population. Net zero in technology means that the change required in terms of people's skills and their qualifications during their working life has never been more rapid. Global economic change means that there is an emphasis on secure nomics, resilience of individual economies and a move away from globalisation of recent decades, which means that we will need to be more self-sufficient in skills and across a number of economic areas. That is why the skills debate is so important. As I move the motion in my name, I would gently comment to the Government that the quotes in the motion are ones from reports that they commissioned. The figures are figures that they have published. The analysis, I would argue, is one that is a consensus not just between politicians and business, but across those benches. I wonder why the Government is seeking to amend my motion to obliterate all those observations and comments, because I believe that consensus is possible. We need constructive discourse, albeit critical at times. We need to be frank in our reflections on our system here in Scotland. If we look at just raw numbers of apprenticeship completions, they are down in 2022-23 compared to 2015-16. Graduate apprenticeships are largely flat and small in number relative to university degrees. The number of employers and providers providing apprenticeships is down by a fifth. We also see blockages in the system. There are some 800 apprentices who started in 2017-18 who are yet to complete. We have year 5 and 6 apprentices who just should not be possible. That is down to blockages in assessment and the ability of those apprentices to get recognition for the skills that they have already climbed. That is blockages in the system. On in-work training, there are also key issues coming from employers. According to the British Chamber of Commerce, some 70 per cent of respondents said that the skill shortages are impacting their business and their profitability. We have a problem in terms of throughput in the system and serious challenges are being caused to business because of the inability to create the skills that they need. On in-work training, the ONS reports that just barely over a quarter of people are in work training. In terms of flexibility and providing training for people currently in work, it is almost not there for most workers. In that context, I think that the Wither's review has been useful. I think that it provides analysis that we can all agree, certainly in parts if and not all of it, and some ways forward. However, what I would observe is that I do not think that all of those recommendations are necessarily prioritised or on an equal basis. I think that there are functional recommendations and structural ones. I think that some of those functional ones are perhaps more important than the structural ones. However, the issue that we have with the Government is not just that it has been largely silent in the six months since that report. Actually, it has been silent in some areas and overly specific in others. In the principles and priorities document, it is essentially a commit to a single funding structure and a consolidation of the qualifications and the frameworks, and yet it is silent on the functional issues. I would say that the points that James Wither highlights on flexibility around a digital passport and putting the vocational and skills regime on a commensurate basis with other qualifications are critically important. Actually, embarking on costly and time-consuming structural porn could potentially get in the way of those. I would also note the Conservative amendment about putting the skills regime on a commensurate basis is of critical importance, and we would vote for it, but I think that there is preemption involved. I would also say that even if those structural reforms were correct, I have concerns about the ability of those organisations, which would be requiring to assume additional responsibilities in terms of their capacity to adopt those functions. The Scottish Funding Council has not done as much as it could do to progress graduate friendships. There are huge challenges in the tertiary education sector. The SQA has a huge task ahead of it if it is going to onboard the Hayward review and its recommendations. Whether it has the ability and capacity to assume additional functions from the skills regime, I am not clear. In the meantime, the over-specificity in those areas and the lack of clarity in others leaves a huge cloud over the whole system, where we have organisations in Limbo, structures such as the SAV Board, which are essentially condemned and SDS looking as though it is going to be dismembered, but with no real clarity as to what is going to happen. I think that a consensus is possible, and I look forward to future Government debates where we talk about flexibility and additional pathways, and I would urge them to do so, because that is how we build consensus and build a plan. In conclusion, I would like to light on a quote from Jimmy Reid, who in 1972 said that, to unleash the latent potential of our people requires that we give them responsibility and that the untapped resources of the North Sea are nothing compared to the untapped resources of our people. I am convinced that a mass of our people go through life without a glimmer of what they could have contributed to fellow human beings, and that is a personal tragedy that is a social crime. Jimmy Reid was right then, but I think that he is even more right now, and the failure to provide a clear plan for our skills system will continue to let down people and ensure that they do not realise their potential. I am confirming my recollection that Mr Johnson did move. I now call on Graeme Dey minister to speak to and to move amendment 10922.2, up to five minutes. I genuinely welcome Labour to bring in this albeit brief debate. It gives me an opportunity to outline the work that has been undertaken in response to the Willows report thus far ahead of giving a fuller update to Parliament, subject to the agreement of the Bureau in the coming months. Like Daniel Johnson, I welcome James Willows' report. It makes a compelling case for change and it is an important moment in moving us towards an education and skills system that delivers for our future needs. Not long after this report, as Daniel Johnson highlighted, we published The Purpose and Principles being clear about the outcomes that we want to see from the system in the short, medium and long term. We welcomed the direction of travel that was represented by the report. We set out some of our initial priorities for reform. However, we were also clear that we needed to take time to consider the practicalities and the implications of implementing change and to listen to constructive and knowledgeable views. I therefore do not accept the idea that the Government has not moved quickly. It has moved at the right pace and with purpose and it will continue to do so. I know that when James Willows has appeared before committees, he has welcomed the measure approach that he is taking to considering his findings. We must be clear also that we do not start from scratch. There is much already that is positive. However, with us was a review about future needs and how we meet them. He found that there is confusion and duplication in our public body landscape, but even if our current system was perfect, the world around us is changing and we cannot afford to stand still. Since June, my officials have been working on the priority set out in purpose and principles to establish the appropriate governance and approach to implementing change. Alongside that, I have engaged widely in gathering views and developing my understanding of the challenges organisations are facing and how that is impacting on their staff and ultimately the learners. Those conversations have helped me to be clearer on the steps that are needed to bring about improvement and the prioritisation of those. The process will continue as we narrow in on the potential routes to reform. The programme for government already commits us to updating Parliament on our plans for reform of the public body landscape and our response to Willows. However, I have been engaging directly also with Opposition Parliamentarians, meaning for example Liam Kerr and Willie Rennie to hear their views. Next week, I will meet with Daniel Johnson as well. I hope that those interactions demonstrate my commitment to the widest possible engagement and to try to find the consensus that Daniel Johnson referred to. On net zero, it is clear that there is a step change that is needed in our workforce if we deliver on our ambitions and meet our ambitions reduction targets. That is one of the key reasons why we accept the recommendation on skill planning moving to the Scottish Government, so there is greater coherence and impetus behind that objective. We need to ensure that every part of our education and skill system can match people towards the available opportunities and that we can put in place the relevant pathways. We are doing what we can here. The Government has already committed £500 million over 10 years to our Just Transition Fund, including over £10 million for skills-related interventions. It has been deeply disappointing that the UK Government has not matched that investment. Presiding Officer, I have also heard loud and clear the concerns expressed by James Withers and echoed by others about funding, recognising that the complexity in multiple streams is confusing and inefficient. That is why as part of the programme for Government, we have committed to leading development of new funding models to simplify the funding landscape and ensure that we are getting maximum return on our investment. That will be all the more important, given that we find ourselves in the most challenging financial situation since devolution. To be clear, neither with us nor purpose of principles was commissioned because of budgetary pressure or to respond to public sector reform, but that is a context that we are now in. The Labour motion did not mention the join-up with wider education reform, but it is crucial to see the reviews as part of one package of reform and therefore to write that they are considered and presented to Parliament in that manner. What we need here is a simpler, more efficient system, more easily understood by learners and users, that equips young people to make the right choices for themselves and make the fullest possible contribution to our society and our economy. The reforms that we have taken forward and the steps that we have taken on implementing them will move us closer to that ambition. We will continue to move forward in close collaboration with colleges, universities, trade unions, industry and other stakeholders. Let me add to that list the staff in the potentially impacted agencies. Not only is that the right thing to do to engage with them as I have done it, it has, for example, already fed into our thinking on the provision of a national career service and how we help to make apprenticeships more accessible to SMEs, and I move them in amendment in my name, Presiding Officer. I now call on Murdo Fraser to speak to and to move amendment 1092.1, up to four minutes, please, Mr Fraser. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I start by welcoming this debate on the future of the Scottish skills agenda, although it is a pity that it is taking place in opposition time and in such a short debate. There are a wide range of issues that need to be addressed in relation to the question of skills, including funding for universities and colleges, funding for apprenticeship schemes and the future of the agency and so on. It is disappointing that the Scottish Government has not allowed time for a full debate on those vital issues that are key to the recovery of our economy. Having listened to the minister and Mr Johnson, I suspect that there is more common ground on that than the ground where we would disagree. I think that a full debate on those issues would be very welcome. I would also say that we would agree with every word of the Labour motion. When I read it, I did not realise that it was lifted from Government publications. That does not stop me from endorsing the wording of the motion. As Mr Johnson said, we have a short addition to it, which I hope members will look sympathetically at all. The motion does not specifically mention the Wither's review, but I believe that, as others have said, we all owe a debt of gratitude to James Wither's for the work that he did in preparing his independent review of the skills delivery landscape that was published back in May. Daniel Johnson calls on the Scottish Government to formally respond to that by the end of the year. That is a call that I would endorse. There are really important issues where we need to make swift progress on to meet the demands of industry. Just to give one example, yesterday I met the civil engineering contractors association, who raised with me their concern about the difficulties that their member companies have in securing appropriate funding for apprenticeships. Construction is an area that needs to attract a large number of younger people to fill vacancies being left by an aging workforce. It is an industry with highly attractive pay and conditions, yet without public support, many smaller employers and medium-sized employers are struggling to be able to afford to take on apprentices. The flexible workforce development fund run through Skills Development Scotland is supposed to provide funding for these apprenticeships, but many employers find it in practice extremely difficult to be able to access that funding. Similar points were made by the construction industry training board and their briefing for this debate. They also highlight the important issues around the transition to net zero that we all support, where we will need to see retraining of those who are currently employed in construction and other trades if we are to meet those challenges, and that is going to require a stepped increase in the support available. My amendment today mentions the issue of parity of esteem, which James Withers highlighted in his own report. When he appeared at the economy committee last month, he told us in relation to the funding of higher and further education and training more generally that apprenticeships have been the poor relation. He told us that he would like to see universities having the freedom to utilise the core funding that they get from the funding council to deliver degrees either through full-time study or through apprenticeships. We should not see those routes as separate and distinct, but both should be part of the same mainstream. His view was that of the total amount that was sent in Scotland on skills of £3.2 billion. There needs to be greater flexibility to use that funding, including to fund apprenticeships. In that regard, we need much greater clarity on the apprenticeship levy. I hear from UK-wide employers that south of the border, there is much more transparency around accessing the apprenticeship levy and how employers can get their hands on that money. In Scotland, our share of that levy goes into the block grant and it is very difficult to identify how much of that money actually goes into funding apprenticeships. Not surprisingly, many businesses feel frustrated that they are having to pay this levy but are not able to get anything back in return. The Scottish Government needs to be clear and transparent about what happens to those funds. This is a matter that the Scottish Government is able to address in its upcoming budget. We need clarity around the apprenticeship levy and where exactly that money goes and why it is not currently reaching the front line. That is the point that is made in my amendment for this debate, which I have a pleasure in moving. I now call Willie Rennie. Up to four minutes, please, Mr Rennie. We will support the Labour motion today, but I want to give credit to the minister and also to the weather review. I think that he has engaged in a positive fashion and I think that the omens are good for a good policy in the future. The recent record on the Government on skills has not been a positive one. The last minister, to be frank, just did not seem to be too interested in the whole area. We have been waiting for over five years for this skills landscape reform and the minister only acted after he was criticised by Audit Scotland for the lack of leadership. Before we have the weather review, we do not have the formal official response from the Government. It could be even longer from that initial start point where the landscape review was supposed to be undertaken before we actually get any change. The world is changing fast. We are going through a new green industrial revolution. While we are waiting a long time for the reforms to come, the world is moving on and I fear for the consequences of that. It would be wrong not to mention colleges today, especially following the Fraser of Allander report this week where it talked about graduates from colleges boosting the economy by £52 billion over their work in life. Shona Struthers was right this week when she said that the report quantifies the huge return on investment from Scottish colleges. That is the crucial bit. She was puzzled that there isn't a decisive move to invest more and gain more. In fact, investment is falling sharply. In other words, the college sector delivers billions and could deliver more, but the Government is cutting millions. The symptoms are strikes, the threat of compulsory redundancies and the loss of opportunity for potential students. We do need to invest in the college sector if we are going to get the proper return that is promised. However, there is much in the Wither's review that I think we should commend. I think that it brings clarity and clear roles and responsibilities. It brings clarity for employers and training providers and students. It gives intelligent control over how the money is spent. For students, the new career service, is a central piece of the Wither's review, led by the newly reformed Skills Development Scotland, making sure that it covers not just those who are choosing a non-university career trajectory, but also those who are going into higher education so that everybody gets the best advice. For employers, better clear advice from a single source through Scottish Enterprise is long overdue. There is also a more systematic involvement of employers in the planning of skills. For everyone, a single source of funding brings together education and skills, national and regional planning to set out immediate and future skill needs, parity of esteem, utilising much more effectively the SCQF framework. However, there are questions around the role of the employers group SAB, which I am meeting tomorrow, but the devil will be in the detail of subsequent decisions on policy and funding. Simplification can sometimes mean a lack of sophistication with some losing out. For example, the implication, it does not quite state it, but the implication in the Wither's review is that the flexible workforce development fund should end and brought under the main central funding. However, some employers, as Murdo Fraser has highlighted, may lose out as a result of that simplification and the lack of sophistication, so we need to make sure that the new system does take account all of those needs. Bringing together funding for higher education, further education and skills will mean little if there is not a transfer of funds between those different functions. Making that transfer will be fought fiercely by those defending already shrinking budgets, so we need to address the simplification on that front, too. Those are difficult matters, but we must have those discussions and end with much more time if those reformed skills landscape is going to be fit for the future. Thank you, Mr Rennie. We now move to the open debate and speeches of up to four minutes. If you want an illustration of what has been a lack of leadership, a lack of urgency from Government in facing up to and tackling the skillshots that we face today and which will become even more profound in the future, it is the treatment of Scotland's colleges, as Willie Rennie has already highlighted. A week never passes when I don't speak to local businesses who tell me about the acute labour and skill shortages they face, businesses who are desperate to recruit, desperate to upskill their staff, desperate to take on apprenticeships. When I speak to my local college in Dumfries and Galloway, they tell me their Skills Development Scotland apprenticeship contract for 2023-24 has been cut by 13 per cent. At a time when demand for apprenticeships at peak levels, crucial areas for the local economy like construction and engineering now have waiting lists for apprenticeship places at that college. It is, Presiding Officer, the economics of the madhouse. It was bad enough that the budget agreed in February meant a real terms cut of £51 million for colleges that would have led to a 10 per cent reduction in activity levels at that college in Dumfries. The decision to axe a further £26 million has meant brutal cuts in colleges with courses acts not because of a lack of ambition from our colleges, not because of a lack of demand from students or employers but because of a lack of priority on skills from the Government. Where is the SNP's green fair work agenda when those cuts mean colleges are now embarking on compulsory redundancies? Where is the fair work agenda when college staff are having to take industrial action to fight for a fair deal for last year, never mind for this year? Presiding Officer, I've lost track of the number of times ministers have stood up in this chamber and told us there's no strike action in their NHS because of their intervention, that their action settled the teachers' dispute. But when it comes to college pay, the perception of college staff is that Government ministers have been posted missing. I don't know if the minister's been on a picket line speaking to college workers. I've been on many. If he has been, he would know that none of them want to be on strike. Their demands are not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is the real-terms pay cut that they've been offered. What's unreasonable is that inadequate pay offer is being funded on the backs of sacking staff and what is unreasonable is a lack of intervention from the minister to broker a deal. Presiding Officer, that says all you need to know about the lack of priority the Government is giving to our colleges. Our colleges are the powerhouse of our economy and skills at every single stage of the learning journey. New qualifications for school leavers, upskilling, retraining those already in the workplace. James Wither's review of the skills delivery landscape described that role as absolutely pivotable, but it is a role that is being held back by Government cuts, by funding bodies that don't properly recognise the additional costs of delivering college courses in rural areas where skills shortage is often the most acute, and it is a role that is being suffocated by that cluttered landscape that it operates in. When the Government gets round to eventually responding to the Wither's report, I hope that it will heed the calls for stronger leadership and direction from Government and, crucially, the recommendations that would see far more focus on our colleges as a key anchor institution deriving that skills agenda forward. I want to end in a final plea to the minister to take a more interventionist role in trying to broker that deal between college staff and colleges so that they can get back to the job of delivering the figures that Willie Rennie highlighted that really are strengthening Scotland's economy. Thank you, and I call Kevin Stewart to be followed by Pam Gossel. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The roll-out of the Scottish Government's 10-year just transition fund is in its first years, and this substantial structural change that Labour is calling for in its motion is already under way. It's vital that there is a focus on being smarter about skills delivery by ensuring skills delivery matches industry needs, and that is exactly what is happening in the north-east. In year one, the just transition fund has supported initiatives right across our region. A million pounds was awarded to the national energy skills accelerator for its pilot energy transition skills project. Nesa is a partnership between Robert Gordon University, the University of Aberdeen, and North East Scotland College. The energy transition skills project is aimed at determining the exact skills required to meet the needs of the net zero energy transition from now until 2030 and to develop targeted training, upskilling and re-skilling for people impacted by redundancy or transferring from oil and gas, with a focus, of course, in retaining jobs in the north-east. The focus is on matching skills development to the exact needs of low-carbon industries. In the words of Professor Underhill, Nesa Chair and University of Aberdeen's director of energy transition, this work will help to prepare the education pipeline for the anticipated surge in key skills requirements and lay the foundations for upskilling and re-skilling to benefit sustainable energy careers for existing workers and future generations. Five million pounds has also been awarded to Apetal to deliver an energy skills passport. The energy skills passport will streamline the transfer of skills and address the lack of recognition of cross-sector skills. That will allow oil and gas workers to prove that they have the recognised qualifications and training that are needed to access new clean energy jobs. The passport is also key to streamlining re-skilling by identifying specific skills gaps and targeting training to those specific gaps that will both allow workers to be re-skilled faster and allow more workers to be re-skilled with the same resources. Pat Rafferty, Unite Scottish Secretary, speaking on behalf of the STUC, said that the passport will help to identify to all stakeholders where there are skills gaps and shortages that can shape appropriate policy responses so that we can deliver a just transition and net zero economy. I recognise that that is a work that is in progress and I recognise that there is some stickiness around about the passport and I hope that ministers will be able to ensure that those difficulties become unstuck and that that works the way that it should. Skills delivery cannot be restricted to re-skilling today's workers. It's vital that tomorrow's workers who are currently in our schools and colleges come into the workplace with the skills for the future. Again, in the north-east, that is happening with the just transition fund, with the energy transition zones partnership with North East College developing the advanced manufacturing skills hub in Altonston Aberdeen and working in schools throughout our region. With such excellent work, early work by the just transition fund, it's vital that both Labour and the Tories in Westminster commit to matching the SNP's £500 million just transition fund. It might be a little bit late, but it's not too late and better late than never. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I call Pam Russell to be followed by Martyn Whitfield. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm delighted to be able to contribute to this debate on the importance of Scotland's skills landscape to its future economy. I will be supporting amendment in the name of my colleague Murdo Fraser. As someone who took a very unconventional journey through the various stages of the education system, I have long been an advocate of the idea that one size does not fit all. And that different people suit different pathways. For example, I have two boys. One of my sons have took more traditional route through higher education, university and is now a doctor. My other son is training to be a mechanic through an apprenticeship. But it's disappointing that there is still so much more work to do to achieve parity of esteem between different pathways such as these. For many young people, an apprenticeship is an ideal way to learn on the job and is a type of learning supported by over 12,000 employers in Scotland. But as it stands, demand for apprenticeships is outstripping supply. Early this year, the Scottish Government left training providers and young learners in Limbo because of delays to apprenticeship funding. That is despite confirmation from the Scottish Training Federation that demand for apprenticeship places has never been higher. But that failure to provide enough apprenticeship places is undermining the crucial role that they have to play in Scotland's future skills landscape. Presiding Officer, our report released this week from the Fraser of Allander Institute provides a fresh look at how important colleges will be to Scotland's economic future. It highlights that, highly skilled, college graduates benefit the Scottish economy by around £8 billion in total. The study also found that just a single year of college graduates has the potential to increase labour productivity by more than 0.3 per cent. Those are just two of many benefits that our college sector can offer our economy. That is a sector that has struggled for years due to continued under-investment. I would also like to highlight that there is also a significant gender divide within apprenticeships, with female apprentices entering lower-paid work on average compared to the male counterparts. I hope that the minister will be able to set out what he is doing to close this gap in his closing remarks. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, the Fraser of Allander Institute put it best this week when they said, colleges sit at the forefront of skilling up the nation through its diverse and extensive selection of further and higher education courses. Without taking full advantage of this pathway, Scotland cannot have a skills system that is fit for the future. Our colleges are capable of delivering the skills that our country needs and the onus now sits with the Scottish Government to deliver the funding for apprenticeship places that is clearly needed. I will fully support Labour's motion and I hope that the chamber can support the amendment in the name of Murdo Fraser, which calls for the Government to ensure that everyone who wants to pursue an apprenticeship is able to do so. Thank you, and I call Martyn Whitfield to be followed by John Mason. I'm very grateful, Presiding Officer, and it's a pleasure to follow Pam Gosel in respect of this debate because I think she highlights something that is so important, that there are unconventional routes through education. There is not one system that works for all of our young people, or indeed our people in work, or indeed our older people, and that the need for flexibility sits at the very heart of the reasoning behind this debate today. I would echo Colin Smyth's contribution and others about the importance of colleges and the need to see, if not government intervention and urging from government, to settle the dispute that is in front of us. Because all of this about skills talks to something that is so important to Scotland, and that is the picture about the public finance. The Scottish Government's own medium-term financial strategy published in May estimates a funding shortfall of £1 billion in 2024 to 25, and that will rise to £1.9 billion by 2027 and 28. The updated fiscal framework may have reduced this headline figure, but as we've heard, the Fraser of Allander Institute estimates that the First Minister's announcement on council tax will come in at some £417 million. And it's in this context that we need a government that is focused on economic growth and creating more well-paid jobs. And how that is achieved is by the dissemination of skills, the re-skilling, the newly-skilled, and pointing to skills for our young people and those already employment so that we can take an increased tax take to fund the public services on which we all rely. And I welcome the Minister's commitment to matching particularly young people to skills, but perhaps could extend that to matching people who are needing re-skilling to the correct and proper skilling. And I welcome the announcement of the simplification of funding streams, because that in itself has created a landscape in which our SMEs and other companies find it almost impossible to proceed through an apprenticeship, a scheme that so many of those that run our SMEs themselves went through when they were younger. And addressing the skills shortage in our economy is the fundamental strategy that we have for growth. It is a good government that would be serious about growing the economy. It is a good government that is serious about addressing the skills shortages. But we have a situation in Scotland where many sectors are not planned for at all, particularly integral to our growth, particularly with regard to our digital skills. There is a widening of that gap, and there is no bridging that I see that is going to cover that in the near or foreseeable future. And as a result do we have the ability to build a resilient domestic supply chain? We don't. Look at the capital projects that are being held back by staff shortages. And can I welcome the briefing paper from the CITB where they point out that the lack of construction skills plan for Scotland with a clear overview of existing delivery arrangements for upskilling and re-skilling and specific funding programmes is a significant omission to the skills delivery landscape. But it is worth pointing out again the independent review reported that the skills delivery has lacked clear leadership and direction. And there is an opportunity from the Minister to change that. But that failure lies in a succession of Government Ministers who have neglected that responsibility, who have not been a good government and we are now paying this price. The question of why it's taken so long for the Government to respond to the report is pertinent because time spent waiting for this response is time wasted for our young people and those who are seeking change. We've heard about the benefits in the north-east but we need to see that across the whole of Scotland. We have a falling birth rate in an ageing population here. Our way round it is to support those people who are coming into work, who are in work, to re-skill and that is the way that we can build an economy that works for all of us. I'm grateful, Presiding Officer. I call John Mason to be followed by Brian Whittle. Thank you very much and I thank Labour as well for bringing this debate today. The motion calls for structural change and that has been committed to, I believe. However, I always have some reservations about too much emphasis on structures with the cost involved. There are other factors at play here as well as structures. One factor we also need to take cognisance of is the emphasis we as a society place on university education. Absolutely, we should enable every person for whom university is the right choice to get there without fees or other barriers. However, university is not the right route for everyone, as other speakers have said today. We need to get that message across to our young people and to their families and to wider society. Modern apprenticeships certainly are the right route for many and that route will often open up a career and a way of earning more money as well as more satisfaction than university would have. Society needs a mixture of people with a mixture of skills. In my own case, I decided to train as an accountant and I needed to go to university to do that. However, I think currently we find some young people who decide to go to university without much idea of what job they will do at the end of the course and that is disappointing both for them and for us as a society. I would just argue that we need to get the balance right between young people studying a subject that they would like to do on the one hand with what longer-term career they are looking to have as well. I thought, James, whether those comments on parity of esteem were excellent. As he says, the way we talk about different pathways is fundamental to achieving parity of esteem. He goes on to say... Briefly, yes. Can I offer John Mason the reassurance that the very points he is making are perfectly valid and are forming a lot of our thinking around the national career service to address those very issues? John Mason. That's great and I'm reassured by that. James Weller goes on to say... Different pathways are simply different, not better, not worse, just different. We want to... ...consign to the dustbin the outdated view that studying at university is somehow a better kind of success. At the same time, we should be proud of that sector, but there are also multiple potential pathways available. Again, learning happens in schools, colleges, universities, workplaces and elsewhere. We need more of a single integrated system, I agree. I think it is unfortunate that Labour's motion refers to skill shortages but does not mention Brexit. With the best will in the world, neither Scotland nor the UK will ever produce exactly the goods and services we need. In the same way, however good our education and training system is, a flexible international labour market as the EU provides allows our people to take up opportunities in other countries and allows others to come and take up opportunities here. The Government is taking time to consider whether there are review recommendations and I think that is right. He makes 15 recommendations and some are more radical than others. Specifically, recommendation 5 proposes a single national funding body and I do certainly warm to that proposal. Scotland is a relatively small country and we should be able to run things in a simpler fashion compared to larger bureaucratic countries. My inherent feeling would be to support such a simplification. My only real concern would be to ensure that such a body would operate on the parity of esteem principle and would not say favour universities over colleges and modern apprenticeships. There is important point 2 just in passing that we should recognise the skills of migrants. Concerning the Conservative amendment I welcomed their support for parity of esteem but I also note their point about shortage of public funding. That strikes me as slightly ironic. Firstly, because this is the party which wants lower taxes and that would inevitably mean a greater shortage of public funding. I'm sorry, I don't have time to give in. As usual they do not suggest where the money should come from. To finish on a positive note 33 per cent of school leavers are going into positive destinations so while we always want to improve those destinations going forward there are lots of positives in the present Scottish system and we should not be afraid of celebrating these. Thank you. I am grateful to the opportunity to speak in this debate and I thank the Labour Party for bringing such an important issue to the chamber and in my view an issue which has been neglected by the SNP Government. Let's face it, the SNP Government has been in power for 16 years that is practically a whole generation of potential skills development that has been far too far down the list of SNP priorities. We do have such an opportunity here especially in the green economy and in the blue economy and in the rural economy. We talk about the need for a just transition away from oil and gas. The SNP Greens will trawl out the remaining targets and then pat themselves in the back and head off to the wine bar, job done. I have always said that this Parliament voted for renewable targets that were set last term but with the understanding that a route map to achieve these targets would be brought forward. Case in question, Minister Patrick Harvie brings forward a bill to retrofit a million homes with heat pumps by 2030. What a great idea. But who is going to fit them? Who will pay for them given the need to be fitted to homes with good insulation and underfloor heating? Sorry, Minister. Brian Whittle makes points about delivery on the emissions target. Why does the Conservatives oppose every single measure that comes forward in this Parliament to deliver on those targets? If the minister had actually been listening I said it was a great idea so I... But as I said to them who will fit them? Who will service them? Whittle and who will pay for them? The construction industry told us they will need an extra 22,500 tradespeople and engineers by 2028 if they have any chance of hitting that Government target. That would mean they would have to be in training now. What an incredible opportunity for our pupils or for those looking to transition from the oil and gas sector into the renewable sector. Yet this obvious first step to meet this world-leading target and leaving a green economy into our education system has been overlooked by the minister. Not one single person in the industry that I have heard from believes for one second that this target will be hit. Empty rhetoric, empty words and of course blaming everyone else for their favials. We have 13 per cent of our working age population economically inactive. The majority of whom are inactive due to poor health. That is the biggest drag in our economy. The way to deal with this huge issue is through investment in our education system. Education in my view has always been the solution to health and welfare. Giving pupils confidence and resilience and aspiration by showing them what the renewable economy could offer them and what they in turn could do for the green economy and for Scotland. What an opportunity we can offer for those in education, in our schools and in our colleges in addition from the oil and gas sector in engineering, in trades people in our rural economy, in our blue economy the Scottish education system should be at the forefront of delivery of global net zero ambitions. Remember this some of those who will pick up the bat and run with it these ambitions by 2045 and in primary school or even in preschool we should be enthusing them and encouraging them into these sectors we should be ensuring that there is an understanding of the huge variety of skills required for our future generations but unfortunately we have a Government who cannot join up these dots a Government who cannot make the connection between setting targets and delivering a route map if we get it right our Scottish health, our welfare, our justice and our economy will benefit hugely but if we continue along the road of this Scottish Government have been taking us for the last 16 years we will slide further behind the curve and we should be leading much better Our economy is changing indeed it has to change living in the midst of a climate emergency it has perhaps never been clearer that business as usual whatever the sector or industry is not an option and of course underpinning that economic transformation must be a skilled and supported workforce who come from and sustain co-operative and compassionate communities so education and skills development of our workforce and communities are vital to us to achieving our ambitions across all aspects of our lives I want to thank James Withers for the work he undertook for the independent review of the skills delivery landscape in Scotland this wide-ranging review and its recommendations are challenging and thought-provoking I appreciated the session with him that we had in the economy and fair work committee recently and I know these conversations will be ongoing As we've already heard the Withers report warrants a dedicated and detailed response in its own right and this is forthcoming The structural and operational recommendations speak to important issues the need for more strategic working for policy coherence for empowerment of regional and local partners and workforces There are of course specific skills needed to ensure we deliver the just transition we want to see skills in energy of course but also in things like affordable net zero housing the construction workforce needed for retrofits is a nice example of the urgent need for targeted government intervention as we've just heard and we must work with industry to ensure we have the in-work learning opportunities our workforces will need One further comment on policy coherence maybe strategy coherence too our legal climate targets nor will we achieve the just transition or creation of the clean green economy we want if the different components of work don't join up agencies and industry are calling for this too so I'm hopeful that the green industrial strategy will provide that coherence alongside the updated climate emergency skills action and just transition plans we need to identify skills balancing opportunities and accelerate investment in skills to as we've heard from others already and of course the fair work agenda highlighted this afternoon by Colin Smyth must be central to that coherence I want to use my remaining time to highlight just one other important area that we cannot overlook as we create the strategic landscape for our future economy that of gender inequalities and occupational segregation I'm grateful to close the gap between the conversations I've had with them about this occupational segregation is all too apparent in our labour market women are concentrated in low paid, undervalued and increasingly precarious jobs jobs that are often low carbon jobs but are overlooked when we talk about net zero skills and jobs the skills system in Scotland reinforces patterns of occupational segregation as does the modern apprenticeships scheme women are vastly underrepresented within the energy sector and in green jobs more widely and sexual skills shortages are correlated with occupational segregation such labour market rigidity must not be sustained as we look to reform the skills landscape in Scotland I hope that we will take seriously the opportunity to get rid of gendered patterns of skills acquisition and employment so that we do not further entrench occupational segregation and gender inequalities at workforces in different sectors in closing I appeal to the minister to all in this chamber that we take seriously the calls not to be gender blind as we undertake reform of our skills landscape that we take seriously the calls for genuine political leadership for this work to happen and happen at pace and that we heed the calls for strategic and policy coherence within and across sectors if we get this right we have ambitions to create and sustain an economy that cares and provides for everyone Thank you I call Bob Doris, final speaker in the open debate This afternoon's debate has been fascinating there has actually been a fair degree of consensus in parts anyway in the first instance we all accept that there is a clear case for change regarding how we further develop and improve our skills landscape it is of course right that we navigate that we take the time to fully engage with industry trade unions and educational institutions some of those in this place would wish to see us or the Scottish Government act more swiftly to consider and implement recommendations would also likely be amongst the first to complain and rightly so, if there is not full engagement with industry unions and education sector so let's do so, yes, timmestly but meaningfully and let's get any required changes right Covid has been devastating Presiding Officer however, having checked the Skills Development Scotland website it showed that there has been 25,447 modern apprenticeship starts from April 2022 through to March 2023 and that modern apprenticeship starts are now 91% returned to pre-pandemic levels that's positive and as SDSAs it's showing employer demand for critical skills the challenge is of course to ensure we deliver the right skills in training at the right time to support our businesses and our workforce that's what the review is all about the skills review is crucial however, Skills Development Scotland also confirms that figures show the number of apprentices in training currently across the country despite some of the doom and gloom I've heard today at its highest ever level at around 39,000 it is important that we ensure the needs of our school leavers and workforce more generally are met when we take forward changes to the skills landscape and we have solid foundations to build on with 93% of our school leavers sustaining positive destinations with many in education training and employment it is also encouraging that the presented share of individuals who start a modern apprenticeship with a declared disability of care experience or coming from an ethnic minority community has increased although I do note members of race concerns over gender segregation and the need for women in those roles and the crucial role that apprenticeships have to play as a pathway into highly skilled employment for those in our most deprived communities is clear with the largest share of starts 24% where individuals come from 20% of our most deprived backgrounds now the review talks about significant funds in the system already often been fragmented and not always used effectively as it could be and I note one example was colleges who often have to balance their sustainability between a mix of core funding via credits and the boat on funding such as through national transition training funds and the young persons guarantee so I was very interested in recommendation 5 to establish a new style national funding body to have responsibility for administering and overseeing the delivery of all publicly funded post school learning and training provision really interesting idea that would live a clear line of sight between ministerial priorities and policies and public funding and it also links to recommendation 6 redesign the process for how funding of all learning and training provision is to be taken forward and the very limited time I have left in that context we must look at the position of colleges they have a hugely tight financial predicament at present they are making redundancies they need investment and sustainability if recommendation 5 and 6 means anything that must deliver for Scotland's college sector thank you and we move to winding up and I call on Liam Kerr up to four minutes please and I begin by echoing Murdo Fraser's opening lament that in closing a debate as important as one entitled ensuring Scotland's skills system is fit for the future and hit the main points I've got a mere four minutes because as many have said this afternoon this is perhaps the key issue that we must address if we are to sort out Scotland's economy and give our young and not so young people the skills to succeed not only in the Scotland of the future but in the Scotland of the present and that's why whilst I commend Labour for using their opposition debate time to lay a sensible motion which we shall support I find it nothing short of appalling that despite Audit Scotland's conclusion that urgent action was needed on skills from the Scottish Government nearly two years ago and despite the Withers Review's conclusion that skills delivery has lacked clear leadership and direction despite the substantial structural change that is recommended to ensure the skills system is fit for the future the Scottish Government has failed to bring such a debate itself and give us proper debate time just as as Daniel Johnson pointed out it has been largely silent since the Withers Review you see I think that what we've heard this afternoon is that we all agree that Scotland urgently needs a vision for a flexible responsive skills delivery system that is fit for the future but we do not get to that by slashing around 150,000 college places since 2007 especially when, as Willie Rennie said the Fraser of Allander Institute issues a report saying college graduates will benefit the Scottish economy by around £52 billion over their working lives we don't get there by seriously underfunding their education sector then as Colin Smyth said whipping a further £26 million away from them we don't get there by failing to be transparent about funding from the apprenticeship levy and as Pam Gossel highlighted delaying funding to training providers and learners or making it difficult to access flexible workforce development funding as Murdo Fraser said or by simply accepting a situation where 50 fewer science teachers 300 fewer maths teachers and 65 fewer physics teachers in 2022 than there were in 2008 what we have heard however is that what will help are things like parity of esteem between further education higher education and apprenticeships as demanded by the Conservative amendment what will help are increasing and properly funding the number of apprenticeships alongside clarity and transparency around the levy what will help is offering every adult access to skills funding through a right to retrain programme and taking note on the recommendations in withers such as ending the duplication of bodies and the creation of a targeted skills development board which directs funding and opportunities to industries and areas where there is a workforce shortfall and as Martin Whitfield said more urgency, more action and one key point on what will help was made by Brian Whittle we've got so many opportunities in things like the green, blue and rural economies but these are often stymied due firstly to an obsession with headline grabbing targets which are not underpinned by a delivery plan and secondly to a highly concerning tendency to silo-thinking instead of the cross-cutting vision and oversight that is required and for those reasons Parliament should vote for the motion in Daniel Johnson's name and also the amendment in Murdo Fraser's thank you and I call on Richard Lochhead up to four minutes minister thank you one area that we can all agree on is that this is a very important debate and the choice of topic and the importance of this was brought home to me just before I came to Parliament for this debate where I visited the national robotarium at Heriot-Watt University when I was admiring that amazing facility state of the art facility it's going to prepare Scotland for the rest of the 21st century looking at the role of robotics and AI and it just reminded me how quickly our society our economy and the world is changing and that's why this debate is so so important and I think that Scotland's got two key windows of opportunity here, we've got the net zero stroke energy transition which will bring great jobs and wealth this country we've also got the high growth sectors which is the other massive window of opportunity so getting the skills right for the future is absolutely vital we are at crossroads, if we take the right roads we've got big prizes to win and secure for our country and our country's future particularly the future of our young people and that's why the Scottish Government of course commissioned the weather's review into Scotland's skills system because now is the time to do that and fix it over the next few years we have to get this right if we're going to capture those prizes of the future the reviews that we've undertaken have highlighted, there's widespread confusion about current public body roles and responsibilities and of course recommends reform which of course is what we're debating today and what the Scottish Government is now considering and we've accepted the basis of many of these recommendations made by James Withers we've of course got to take the right time to get this right because it's so important and I welcomed of course as I'm sure you all did the minister's commitment to work to build consensus across the chamber and speak to members as well and what that means in the face of this fast pace and fast change in the Scottish economy and the global economy is that we need a skills system and an education system that's agile, that's flexible where our colleges, our universities in particular are able to up-skill re-skill and deliver lifelong learning in a genuine meaningful way because they say that whilst people today may have three or four jobs in their lifetime they're now saying that tomorrow will be three or four careers in your lifetime and that's why we need a system that's agile and fit for purpose very grateful for the minister giving up some of his time would he also agree then that it's really really important that in a marketing sense we ensure that pupils at school understand the opportunities that will be available in future economies minister well yes of course that's really important we've got to talk about what's happening in our schools as well as the further and higher education system the wider skills landscape at the moment and I absolutely believe in parity of esteem as someone who left school then went to college and then went into work and did part-time college while I was at work then left my job to go to university got my degree and went back into the workplace I know there is no wrong path as we say in the campaigns to persuade the young people there is parity of esteem and that of course has got to be an outcome of the changing landscape and the policies going forward in this country and people's impression of what they can get out of the skill system and the education system in Scotland as well I want to pick up on a couple of quick issues that members mentioned firstly Pam Goswell and Maggie Chapman mentioned the whole debate around gender issues and particularly in apprenticeships and I should just point out the Scottish apprenticeship advisory board created the gender commission to develop recommendations that offer real practical solutions to help address the gender imbalance across all of our apprenticeships and recommendations were given to the Government which are now being taken forward and considered and that issue is obviously quite important and also Brian Whittle and some others said we're not training people for the next zero industries of the future, we're not doing that there's lots happening our colleges and universities just now lots happening and early this year Scottish renewables found that almost 22,000 students in Scotland are taking courses relating to renewable energy up more than by 70% 70% increase in 2019 we've got colleges training people to install air source heat pumps and other equipment as well so there's a lot happening we've got all those training and in the funding systems the younger people we've got all the other courses and so we've got all the other gyda services that we're going to do in the coming years because we have never been this way and as a result we've got other services to do that so we've got a lot of funding and most importantly Felly yn bobl yn dysgu'r dwaith, mae'r cyflwctfaen ac yn cyflwyno gweithio cyfforddol â ddeddyb wneud. Felly, dweud hynny ymlaen i fynd i fynd i gydion gyda rangos chi'w cyfrifoedd, a mae gydig yn ddwygario y pr�au ymlaen oedd yn cyfrifiadau i gydigon cy propagationol o'r ddiddordeb gyda nhw. Fy fydd yn cyfrifoedd, mae'n ychydigon. Fy fydd yn cyfrifoedd ac yn cyfrifoedd, mae'n ganchud i'r ddiddordeb gyfnod â'r byd, supported in school when we learn about the world around us, in college and university where we learn to live and work in it and even in the workplace or our community where we learn to apply it. The opportunities education can bring are endless and the skills it builds are crucial. I welcome the minister's comments and others—including Brian Whittles and others—that the entire education system matters in skills, but I remain disappointed have been deep prioritised. Cuts are slaving as inequality is holding back progress. Nowhere is this seen more obviously, as we have heard, than in science, technology, engineering and maths, skills in which are widely recognised to be the accelerating forces for future economic growth and to meet the challenges of tomorrow. It is also consequently where the well-paid jobs of the future lie. To create a Scotland where opportunity is for all, we have to smash o'r cychwyn i ddweudio'r ddweudio a'r cychwyn yn y bwysig o'r ddweudio'r ddweudio'r ddweudio. Gweithio'r effeithio, y ddweudio a'r ddweudio, gymryd y mhobodau, yn ei gweithio. Ond pianowr yw Bob Dorris, Maggie Chapman, Pam Gosell ac yn ni, mae gweithio'r ddweudio a'r ddweudio'r ddweudio mewn ei ddweudio a'r ddweudio'r ddweudio'r ddweudio'r ddweudio'r ddweudio. There are many reasons for this, but they start in the early years of children's lives, where the first real exposure to the building blocks of skills they'll need, taken interest in and then excel at, happen. And as the Institute of Engineering and Technology reports, not focusing on STEM from an early age, limits choices later in life too, including for girls and the data shows it. We know that girls are far more likely to study hires in art and design, French, fashion, food tech and childcare, and boys are more likely to study computer science, physics, engineering and graphic communication. And we know that gender stereotypes continue into the workplace too, as colleagues have said, 60 per cent of people working in care are women, yet women only represent 30 per cent of the STEM workforce, and all that 70 per cent leave and only 12 per cent of the remaining women reach managerial levels. We have to use every opportunity to expose all young people to the broadest of skills, including in STEM, if we are to address skill shortages in key sectors and ensure we take everyone with us. We also have to address, is it possible to have time back? No. Okay, I'll take a very brief intervention. Paul Sweeney. With our time, would you agree that the creation of the B Systems applies Shipbuilding Skills Academy in Glasgow as a key example of how we can promote STEM across genders, across class, across different groups in their communities? Pam Duncan-Glancy. I thank my colleague Paul Sweeney for that intervention and I absolutely agree with that and it is a shining example of what we can do when we innovate to address skill shortages in Scotland. We also have to address the fact that exposure to science or maths or computing for anyone often doesn't happen until a child picks them for their qualifications at age 16. Those opportunities should be open to them much earlier and a plenty throughout their school career. We must be innovative in how we do this. We need to teach children that maths is useful and introduce them to real-life examples of science and technology early and often. Too often, schools in richer areas can offer this more than others, so we must spread that opportunity if we are to build the skills of the future and we have to smash that class ceiling. If we want more pupils to access opportunities, including in STEM subjects, we also need a teaching workforce that is equipped to do that. However, we are not there yet, as Liam Kerr has noted. There are far too few teachers in STEM. Numbers are plateauing and targets are missed. The Government must urgently address that. We also have to create parity of esteem in vocational and academic skills, including through apprenticeships, as Murdo Fraser has pointed out, which is why we will also support the Conservative amendment today. As Colin Smyth, Willie Rennie and others have noted, further education is crucial. That is why it is disappointing that this Government has left them crying out for help and struggling for cash. They are not just key for skills development, they are key for addressing inequality too. We have to change the way we think about education skills and skills, the decisions that we make about them and the money that we allocate to it. We cannot keep saying they matter and do more of the same. The Government has a lot of work to do and it needs to prioritise it. This matters. It is about skills, jobs and the economy, yes, but it is about spreading opportunity too. That is why we brought this debate today. We have to smash the class glass and stepped ceilings to do it so that aspiration and opportunity is available to all. That is what is possible, what is needed and, crucially, that is what a Labour Government's mission will be. I urge the SNP Government to match that ambition so that Scotland can once again be a land of opportunity for all.