Seòmar agus comataidhean

I agree with all that, but we will make progress only if we do detailed research, both quantitative—we need more refined data about how the situation varies by sector—and qualitative, which involves considering what those transitions look like. You have described the problem, but we need to carry out research to identify the solution.

I will pick up on something that you just said, which is absolutely spot on—too many people in Scotland are stuck in low-wage jobs. Picking out what the Resolution Foundation has said in recent weeks, I find it slightly horrifying that, although headline wage growth is happening at pace, if we factor in inflation and remove extraordinary wage payments such as bonuses, the poorest paid are actually seeing their wages shrink quite considerably in real terms.

At a time when so many relatively well-paid areas of work are screaming out for people, is there not a role for much more focused and direct interventions? This is a rather crude example, but how many people with a truck driver’s licence could earn £40,000 compared with the minimal wage that they might be on now for want of a training course? Do we need to be a lot more direct, focused and surgical? Although I absolutely agree with what you are saying about the modern apprenticeship, it takes several years to complete and it is quite inflexible. Do we also need a more surgical labour market intervention to get people into work where they are needed and, critically, where they can earn higher wages?

I will make one remark about the hybrid working comment, because it is important to consider the issue holistically. Speaking as a former retailer, I know that people who work from home do not spend as much money during their working day. It is not just about how many widgets you produce. However, that is not the main thrust of my questions.

I will ask two questions to follow up Ross Greer’s questions about the labour market, labour activity and the impacts on low pay. What work is being done to unpack that first issue a bit more? As Ross said, that is not a new issue; we have been sending more people on to tertiary education for 30 or 40 years, and higher wages should be an outcome of that, but we are not seeing that. To unpack that a little more, about 40 per cent of people go on to higher education, including colleges; however, looking only at full-time university places, we have a slightly lower proportion than England, which has overtaken us.

What is going on? You would expect that, if a higher number of people were going on to higher education in the college sector, their education would be more vocationally focused and would translate into higher employment rates and higher wage rates. Is there work going on to unpack that? Is there work on whether there is a mismatch between skills and requirements and on whether those transitions are working correctly? We need to delve into those headline figures and understand what is happening at a sectoral level. Is that work under way?

Yes.

That would be a good start.

I have one final reflection and a comment that I did not manage to get in.

During the pandemic, I became addicted to looking at Public Health Scotland’s data dashboard. In a sense, it achieved something that the national performance framework has not achieved. For such things to be used, whether we are talking about qualitative or quantitative measures, they need to be engaging, and the NPF is not there yet. The Covid data on the PHS dashboard was complex, but it was rich and it allowed people to look at different things. That is a good example of what we might need to do.

From what has been said in today’s conversation and others, I am struck by the sense that there is a real desire for the NPF to work and for there to be a common language so that different agencies and different parts of the public sector can show their contribution. Ultimately, there has been a failure on the part of the sponsoring organisation to place sufficient emphasis on that. That is my reflection from today’s discussion and the preceding ones.

I will bring somebody else in but, in some ways—and I hope that this is not unfair—you are giving us a glass-half-full version of what is going on. If I could paraphrase, I think that you are saying that having the national performance framework is incredibly useful, but you are talking about how it should be working, rather than how it is. Would that be fair?

I want to bring Jamie Livingstone in, because I was interested to see that the Oxfam Scotland submission referenced what Germany did. That was refreshing, because we are lucky if we get an example from somewhere else in the United Kingdom, so it is good to get one from another country. I noted from your evidence that one of the key insights is that there was popular participation in generating the framework In Germany. Could you step us through that and also tell us whether there are similar structures there to ensure that, once the framework is developed, it is applied and there is a plan to use it? In a sense, what Vicki Bibby is articulating—certainly, it is what we are articulating—is that the framework is there but there is no real plan or structure to use it. Are you able to bring in any examples from Germany or elsewhere?

That is an interesting point that probably—to be blunt—brings to life why, essentially, the NPF is withering on the vine, if we are being honest. It is interesting because you are saying that to make it work you need almost a translation of what your organisation’s contribution does. Unless—this is the point that I was making in the previous session—the overarching strategy for how the Government seeks to influence and advance measures and outcomes is holistic, it becomes incredibly difficult for individual agencies or partners to demonstrate how they are contributing to it.

I wonder whether what Neil Ferguson just outlined is what the Government as a whole needs to be doing, by saying, “Here is the national performance framework as a whole, and here is how Government and the public sector are seeking to influence it and deliver against it.”

My first point is on that subject and is not what I originally wanted to speak about. At the risk of contradicting you, convener, coming from a private sector background, I should point out that not knowing what revenue you are going to generate in the coming year does not prevent you from formulating a business plan. You do it on the basis of a high expectation and a pessimistic outcome. It is not set in stone, but the fact that you do not know precisely what your budget is going to be in the following year does not prevent you from setting parameters. Something could be done around that.

The key point that I want to return to is the timeliness point. Having some broad projections and broad plans would be sensible, but do we just need some simple things? For example, on climate change and carbon emissions, everything needs an environmental impact assessment. Whether it is a bit of legislation or a Government strategy, it requires a constant reference back to that. Do we need to do something as simple as requiring all new legislation, strategies, initiatives and programmes to state how they contribute towards achieving the outcomes in the national performance framework—both the primary outcomes that they seek to influence and the secondary ones that they hope to affect in broader terms? Would something as simple as that be useful?

It might just have been a typo. [Laughter.]