Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for those answers.

As Rachel Nicholson has just confirmed, the duties apply to everybody anyway. Obviously, we all want the law to be applied and observed by everybody. I make the point that neither hotels nor long-term lets are subject to licensing requirements. Therefore, if consistency is meant to be the sine qua non—the essential element—it ain’t there, because various types of premises do not have to follow that licensing requirement. The requirement carries with it the risk that people will lose their business. As they come out of the pandemic, that is a pretty serious threat to hang above them like a sword of Damocles, over the next few years.

I turn to antisocial behaviour because—contrary to what seems to have been said previously—specific legislation deals with antisocial behaviour in holiday lets: namely, the Antisocial Behaviour Notices (Houses Used for Holiday Purposes) (Scotland) Order 2011. That legislation exists; local authorities have powers to deal with antisocial behaviour that occurs in short lets. Why is it necessary to introduce a licensing requirement, given that local authorities already have the powers that are required to deal with antisocial behaviour, should it occur in short-term let properties?

Thank you, Frank and Katie, for your answers. I recognise everything you have said from previous discussions. They are very practical issues, so I will not repeat them.

I agree entirely with the analysis and the points that you have made; they are all very reasonable. I do feel, however, that the shared apprenticeship is a model that has not yet been cracked but could be. I wonder whether it might be worth your engaging further with small business representatives—both generic ones, such as the Federation of Small Businesses, and particular trade associations, such as the Scottish and Northern Ireland Plumbing Employers’ Federation. They are often very well informed about the details and they have a lot to offer in terms of being practical and driving things forward.

I accept that we have to look at the interests of young people as well as those of employers, quite obviously, and what Frank Mitchell said about using digital platforms instead of kids having to travel 100 miles to a classroom must surely happen. If we have learned anything from the pandemic, it is that.

Convener, I will finish by asking for two things for after this meeting. Could SDS provide us with some statistics about the performance in rural and small business in so far as it is able to? I appreciate that the compilation of statistics involves classification and definition, but we need a picture of what is happening in rural and small businesses, particularly as we are a small business country.

Finally, I want to make a specific plug. There is a pre-apprenticeship scheme involving training for young people through an organisation called Ringlink, which is a farming machinery and labour co-operative operating in the north-east and elsewhere in Scotland. As Frank Mitchell knows, Ringlink set up an excellent scheme for young people that provides a great model whereby groups of farmers provide training for a host of young people. The model is to be rolled out throughout Scotland. Ringlink was funded on a pilot basis until 2021, and I am keen to see that funding continued and mainstreamed by SDS. I did not raise this with the witnesses previously, so I would not expect them to answer questions about it now—I never like to ambush anybody, do I?—but perhaps they could take both of those questions away and get back to us.

Not at all, convener.

Good morning. I want to start off by thanking our witnesses for all the terrific work that they, their members and their colleagues do throughout Scotland. Over the years, I have seen countless examples, not only in the University of the Highland and Islands and the forestry college in Balloch, in my patch, but throughout the country. As some of you know, I have been involved in a number of matters, in a different capacity, over the years.

The material that SDS submitted is illustrative of a very positive story, not just among universities and colleges, many of which are world leading, but in the scale of apprenticeships. As Frank Mitchell well knows, the number of apprentices increased from 10,579 in 2008-09 to 29,000 10 years later. A threefold increase in 10 years is a tremendous success. On top of that, of course, the pandemic has brought unprecedented challenges. I wanted to preface my remarks on what is a huge topic with that general comment.

I want to address two issues. These are primarily questions for Frank Mitchell, although, of course, others can chip in if they wish to. From what I have seen over 22 years in this institution, the needs of rural Scotland and of small businesses are quite difficult to accommodate when it comes to skills and training in general, for logistical and practical reasons to do with distance and scale. Small businesses do not have a human resources department, they tend to be extremely busy just doing their work and they might comprise only two or three people. However, such businesses could have shared apprenticeships. Is work being done to develop shared apprenticeships?

Secondly, in relation to rural Scotland, do you agree that more needs to be done? Is SDS committed to doing more in that area? How is the rural skills action plan, which was launched not that long ago, faring in meeting the potential of young people, in particular, in rural areas?

As I said, those questions are primarily for Frank Mitchell—it is good to see you again, Frank. I think that you have heard me say all that quite a few times before.

I will ask the minister and her officials two simple questions for clarification.

Is it right that, before any individual is removed from the barred list, there is, must be and will continue to be a full and robust consideration of whether that person remains unsuitable and, moreover, that these regulations will not change that? At the moment, there is a robust test of detailed, careful consideration, and that will remain the case if the regulations are not annulled. Is that correct?

I am aware that a lot of good work is done by VisitScotland, by the kickstart scheme and by colleges and universities throughout the country; I will not name them, as it would take too long. Much good work is also done by the industry itself, which has partnered with the public sector in many ways to help young people into tourism and to give specific practical work experience to youngsters while they pursue primarily academic, classroom-based training courses, certificates or degrees. The industry is to be congratulated on that.

I would be grateful if UK Hospitality and bodies such as the Scottish Tourism Alliance could continue the good relationship that they have with the public sector and the Scottish Government to build on that work, because I think that more needs to be done. I agree with Leon Thompson’s point that there is still a perception risk, even though tourism and hospitality, along with food and drink and events, offer terrific career opportunities and will continue to do so in the future, just as much as they have done in the past.

I invite Paul Mitchell to respond.

Good morning to the witnesses, and thank you for joining us today. The written submissions that we have received indicate that, following the effects of the pandemic, in order to help us to achieve a common economic recovery, business wishes, rightly, to focus on areas where there has been especial damage. Tourism and retail have been mentioned, although there are others. I agree with and welcome the wish for that focus. In particular, Leon Thompson will be aware of the work that the tourism task force has completed, which looked at specific measures that involve particular universities, colleges and establishments with a distinguished track record—for example, in tourism. In the evidence from our retail colleagues, I was slightly concerned to see that the number of apprentices in retail has reduced over recent years.

To supplement their written submissions, I would like the witnesses to provide us with a prognosis and a set of measures that they wish to see in place, and I would like them to be as specific as possible instead of generally saying that we should do more. What, in particular, should that “more” be? Who should provide it?

Having been in a driving seat of sorts, as a minister for 14 years, I am acutely aware that those are complex matters and that it is difficult to deliver objectives into reality. Nevertheless, some very positive, specific, prescriptive suggestions about how we can help younger people, in particular, and how money should be focused on areas such as tourism and retail would be very welcome. My questions go to both witnesses.

Secondly, is it the case that what we are doing here will, in effect, bring Scotland into line with England, which will mean that the same hurdles and time provisions apply?

Thank you, minister.

Both witnesses have provided positive suggestions, which we should pursue afterwards, convener. There is no doubt that we can discuss that. We have some pretty concrete pointers in the right direction.

I have a small supplementary question for Paul Mitchell. Is there a concern in the construction sector that, generally, there is a shortage of skilled labour in many of the trades that are essential to pursue construction projects? Do you agree with me, as someone who represents a largely rural constituency, that the shortage of available contractors means that it is difficult to get competitive prices for projects, which has led to price inflation in many projects in the public and private sectors? Do you consider that, as part of the solution to those issues, we need to take up the suggestions that you have made to ensure that there is a larger stream of young people in rural and urban Scotland going into the construction sector to carry out the work that we all believe is necessary for schools, roads, hospitals, railways and private sector projects?

I endorse what Ross Greer has just said and have a couple of points to add. My understanding of the officials’ response is that, if the regulations are passed, there will be no change to the test that is applied, which protects the public from those who have committed more serious offences. There will be no change at all.

The only alteration is that people will be allowed to make an application at an earlier age. An application that would be refused would also be refused when they are younger. Any suggestion that there is an increased risk is nothing short of scaremongering. I am sure that no one would wish to do that. It is particularly disappointing to hear those arguments when we have already heard that one of the benefits will be a consistency of approach throughout the UK. That means that children who succeed in an application that is made in Scotland would be able to move south to take up advantages there, and vice versa. There may be practical benefits. For those reasons, I will vote against the motion to annul.