Seòmar agus comataidhean

I welcome the document that has been published by the Scottish Government, because it is a much-needed outline of the route map to making Scotland a world-leading small nation for innovation, which we are definitely capable of being. Daniel Johnson made the good point that we have been a long time waiting for this. Nonetheless, we broadly welcome the steps outlined in the strategy, which is necessary to grow the sector. Likewise, we support the decision to develop an innovation scorecard, which will measure the success of the strategy by comparing Scotland’s innovation ecosystem with those of other nations. That is very important when it comes to inward investment.

Various members have said that Scotland has, for centuries, punched well above its weight in technological innovation, but the surrounding investment infrastructure is now a problem. Ivan McKee was quite right when he said that that is as essential in the public sector as it is in the private sector.

We have raised some key points this afternoon, but by far and away the most important of them is the need to complement the ambitious innovation strategy with economic policies that make Scotland the most attractive place in which to live, work and invest. To date, despite the Scottish Government’s very blunt acknowledgement in the foreword that Scotland’s productivity has lagged behind, we simply do not have the economic policies in place to properly address the issue.

The minister referred to stickability, but I hope that he recognises that that has to change to relate to the policies that Murdo Fraser described in his speech, because current tax structures do not bring in the necessary revenue to drive growth, and considerable increases are expected in Scottish Government expenditure over the coming years, especially in health, social care and social security. The current tax structures definitely need reform.

The Scottish Government claims that this is all about progressive taxation, with threats to increase income tax even further. Business, however, will tell a very different story, because it believes that it is about making Scotland less competitive, which is a big worry when it comes to innovation.

Government ministers tell us that looking to Scandinavia for best practice is about innovation. I think that that is true about innovation up to a point, but it is certainly not true when it comes to tax policies. We need look no further than Norway to see what has happened with its investment potential. Paul Sweeney made a good point about new patents.

As the Scottish Government has acknowledged, not nearly enough of our enterprises are innovating, and those that are find it difficult to expand. The Scottish Government has a really big question to answer about why that is, because it is all very well having a national productivity programme, but that must come alongside the right economic policies to create growth and stability. That includes ensuring that the—

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body when it will next review the car parking arrangements for MSPs and staff. (S6O-02356)

Does the minister acknowledge that the difficult fiscal circumstances that we are facing just now are in no part always to do with the UK Government but are in large part a result of the SNP Government not growing the economy?

SPCB members will know that, some time ago, I wrote to the chief executive and to them about the difficulties that were being encountered on exiting and entering the car park at that time. Fairly frequent malfunctions of the barriers were making entry and exit extremely slow. Things improved markedly, mainly as a result of careful and judicious manual operation of the entry and exit system, but in recent weeks the process has again become exceptionally slow—although I have to say that I think that it has been a little better in recent days.

Could I get confirmation, which I think will also be of interest to many other members, that the more efficient manually operated system will be in place from now on, so as to avoid lengthy delays, especially underground when several cars and motorbikes are waiting, with the car fumes that that entails?

To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take to address the negative revenue reconciliation of £687 million for 2024-25 that is currently forecast by the Scottish Fiscal Commission. (S6O-02369)

At the Finance and Public Administration Committee yesterday, the cabinet secretary admitted that, as a result of the negative reconciliation, combined with the projected increases in Scottish Government expenditure, especially in relation to social security, the outlook for the Scottish budget is particularly challenging. She also admitted that that would require the Scottish Government to make very difficult decisions. When I asked her about that, she said that the Government is reviewing 500 projects. Given the seriousness of the budget situation and the need for urgent action, when will the cabinet secretary be able to provide Parliament with the information that the Finance and Public Administration Committee is requesting in order that it can pursue its budget scrutiny?

Exactly 10 years ago—in fact, almost to the day—the Post-16 Education (Scotland) Act 2013 was passed by the Parliament, by 65 Government votes to 51 Opposition votes. It was a very lengthy process, and not without considerable controversy. That was partly because it was a hybrid bill—just like the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014—and, with hindsight, I think we all agree it was a bit too big and unwieldy. There were some very good intentions, such as improving governance of further and higher education institutions, but many of those intentions became submerged in complexity.

The college regionalisation programme was part of that, and it fell into a little difficulty because the main driver was too often seen to be administrative, with the accompanying financial saving, rather than educational improvement. Undoubtedly, there is a balance to be sought between accountability and autonomy, which is never an easy one. However, on college regionalisation, that balance proved to be quite difficult, because although several college principals and boards at the time were very supportive of the Scottish Government’s plans because they liked the idea of co-ordinated regional curricula—as Pam Duncan-Glancy mentioned—others wanted more autonomy. Of course, we then had more issues in Glasgow, in Lanarkshire and at the University of the Highlands and Islands.

Mike Russell’s speeches at the time focused on the financial economies of scale and the reduction of duplication that he believed would be delivered. Unfortunately, because of that, less attention was paid to educational outcomes, and that was true for higher education as well. It was certainly one of the reasons why the Scottish Conservatives—and, I suspect, Labour and the Liberal Democrats—opposed the bill.

I felt that, although supersized colleges would undoubtedly make financial savings, they would lose a bit of the flexibility in delivering courses to local economies, which was the advantage of the previous college system; I note that that issue is at the forefront of what the education committee states in paragraph 95. I vividly remember that, when I first came into the Parliament, I visited what was the Adam Smith College and Rosyth dockyard and was told how successful the college’s local-economy approach had been, and I worried that supersized colleges were going to take away a little bit of that. Up to a point, that has been true.

I mention all of that not only to provide some context, but also in the light of the recent report from James Withers. I applaud that report, because he reflected quite a number of the concerns that date from the 2013 act. He picked up on the concerns that have been referenced in many Colleges Scotland papers over the years, and in those produced about the sector by Audit Scotland. In particular, Withers examined the lack of coherency in post-16 education and qualifications, the lack of parity of esteem between colleges, universities and apprenticeship routes, and issues that have consistently been raised, for many years, by those in the further education sector.

As the minister hinted, the Withers report provides an excellent opportunity to address many of those issues, and specifically to provide a clarity of vision. Notwithstanding what the SFC and the Cumberford-Little report said about reforming the whole structure, I think that the most important recommendation in the Withers report is about the need for the public and business to trust in a new structure of post-16 education that is both clearly understood and appropriate to the diverse needs of the modern workforce, because we should not ignore the fact that 44 per cent of businesses that responded to the survey from the Institute of Directors are saying that they do not really think that their employees have the right skills for the modern economy.

It also matters that the public and business understand, trust and value the qualifications system. In that regard, the Education, Children and Young People Committee has made an important point in paragraph 106 about whether colleges should be able to design their own qualifications and, if they should, how that would fit into a national design. That is particularly pertinent if there is to be a merger of some of the post-16 education agencies, for which I think that there is a good case.

What surely matters most is that educational successes and skills are increasingly adaptable in the modern world. Presently, all is not well. I mentioned that businesses are complaining about weaknesses in their employees’ ability to harness basic skills. We know that college drop-out rates are still too high, as Audit Scotland has identified. I hear what the Scottish Government says about the increasing numbers of people going to positive destinations, but we still have a debate about what “positive destinations” means, and we have an even bigger debate about tracking those who perhaps fall out of the education system.

In paragraph 113, the committee rightly highlights careers guidance, which members have mentioned. My party has a lot to say about how that can be improved, because the right careers guidance is essential to young people. We know what happens if they get bad careers guidance: that can affect a youngster’s pathway for their future career.

There is a major issue of the college estate and how well suited it is to deliver the education of the future. The sector is complaining bitterly that successive cuts to colleges have, in some institutions, done long-term damage to that environment.

This debate is surely about what policies can deliver excellence in our institutions, maintain and enhance the sector’s national and international reputation, and respond to the diverse needs of the local economy. The Withers report has a lot to say on that.

Does Bob Doris agree that we can make further progress if we take up the recommendations of the Withers report? Withers clearly pointed out that there is still confusion about the post-16 landscape.

Will the member give way?

We are remarkably privileged to live in the landscape of Scotland. The beauty of our dramatic scenery, the rich diversity of our culture, our history and ancient monuments and our sporting attractions are just some of the reasons why visitors want to come here. It is true that visitors can also encounter some difficulties—usually with the weather and the perennial challenge of our midges—but tourism is in our DNA. Not only is the sector essential to our global appeal; it is the prerequisite for rebuilding our economy and stimulating economic growth, which we desperately need, given the Scottish Government’s current balance sheet, which the Finance and Public Administration Committee was scrutinising yesterday.

We should never forget that an overwhelming number of tourism enterprises are small businesses, like the Real Food Cafe in Tyndrum, whose owner was in touch with me this morning about the hospitality unlimited project. Small businesses are always the backbone of any economy; according to the most recent statistics, they make up 96 per cent of the sector. Make no mistake: the sector feels so badly let down because of the Scottish Government’s failure to prioritise its needs, especially in rural and island areas.

A couple of months ago, Marc Crothall, the chief executive officer of the Scottish Tourism Alliance, said:

“The industry is experiencing the double whammy from inflation and the policy pain that is adding costs which could put many out of business altogether.”

He went on to say:

“This is entirely the wrong time for the Scottish Government to be piloting policies that will do limited good and risk maximum harm.”

At the weekend, in The Herald, the owner of a self-catering cottage in the Western Isles—who was previously a member of the Scottish National Party, apparently—denounced what he described as “the perfect storm” of SNP policies that could potentially mirror the demographic consequences of the Highland clearances.