Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is a very interesting point, because when we had a group of young people up from The Usual Place in Dumfries, one of the staff made the point that the organisation often slips through the gaps in funding because it is not education and it is not employment, but it bridges the two. Every time it applies for funding, it is told, “Sorry, that is education,” or, “Sorry, that is employment.” I am just trying to work out what is the barrier. It sounds like it is about silo working, but is it because we do not put in place the bridge? We are not funding the bridge; we are funding the two things separately. Is that a fair reflection?

I am just trying to work out why that support is so important for those young people. You said that there is a network of support already there, but it is not functioning correctly. Is the support there and the issue is the way it works, or is the support not there? I am trying to work out what the gap is and why that support is so important for those young people.

Tracey, why do you think that it makes such a difference?

That is very helpful. You were nodding vigorously, Charlie, so I will bring you in.

At the moment, there is clearly a gap in enterprise funding when it comes to conditionality.

Okay, that is helpful. You also mentioned that funding is often discontinued. Is it a common problem that somebody gets a project, it is funded for a couple of years, then, suddenly, that scheme just disappears altogether? That is pretty common, is it not?

Thank you convener, and thanks to the panel for your answers so far.

You have touched on the issue already, but one of the most common concerns that the committee hears about is how the employability services that you talk about are funded. There is the lack of multiyear funding, late awards, schemes being discontinued—as Alan Thornburrow talked about—and projects that do not seem to tick an education box or an employment box, so they fall through the gap. The use of self-directed support is becoming more common and there is concern that, as a result, the checks and balances are not there that would be there if a project was directly funded.

Apart from the obvious fact that we need to fund those services a lot more, what changes do you think we need to make to employment services to make them fit for purpose? You only have an hour to answer that question. Carmel, you mentioned the rules, so I will start with you.

Is that becoming a growing problem? Effectively, people are paying to work for free.

That has certainly happened to a number of projects.

Joanna Panese, specifically on autism, somebody mentioned The Usual Place. I was struck by its scheme of autism awareness for employers, which is about not an individual but a wider awareness among businesses and organisations. However, it finds it almost impossible to get funding for that scheme, because it does not tick all the boxes. The outcomes are not obvious. It is not that five people will go into employment next month as a result of that scheme. It is about just trying to raise awareness among businesses. Are there particular challenges in employability services for people with autism, or do the challenges just involve the general points that others have made?

Amendment 130 is connected to previous amendments in earlier sections. Those amendments, had they been agreed, would have meant that, instead of ministers having to have regard to the objectives that amendment 130 seeks to remove, they would have been required to act in a manner that

“they consider best contributes to achieving the”

overarching

“objectives”,

which is a stronger position, in my view. However, because those amendments were defeated, I will seek to withdraw amendment 130 later.

Amendment 45 seeks to add an additional matter that ministers “must have regard to”—that is,

“any other financial support provided by the Scottish Government to agriculture and rural communities.”

The aim of amendment 45 is to ensure the best use of public money. Different funding streams enter rural areas, and it is important to ensure that they work together effectively to ensure maximum impact. The amendment simply seeks to facilitate that and to ensure that the Government is not making funding decisions in a silo.

Amendment 49 seeks to strengthen the consultation that must happen in preparing the rural development plan by placing a duty on ministers to consult with certain bodies. I have included the bodies that I think are relevant to those consultations, but I appreciate that there might be others. If that is the feeling of the committee, and if the amendment is successful, I would intend to add, at stage 3, any other relevant organisations that ministers consider appropriate.

I move amendment 130.

Given that amendment 22 has been agreed to, I will not move amendment 3.

Amendment 3 not moved.

Amendment 99 moved—[Colin Smyth].