Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will not move it, as I hope to have further discussions about it.

Amendment 112 not moved.

As I indicated, amendment 130 is linked to the success of previous amendments that are not supported by the committee, so I will withdraw it.

On the other amendments, I note that my name is next to amendment 42 as a supporter, and I note that I lodged a similar amendment. I hope that the committee will agree to add biodiversity to the list of objectives, as that is incredibly important.

On my amendment 45, the cabinet secretary has assumed that certain decisions would be made, but the reality is that those decisions would still be entirely in the hands of ministers, and ministers would simply have to have regard to other sources of funding when making particular decisions. The aim of the amendment is to avoid duplication of funding in order to get best value for the public pound, but it could also give scope for adding value by, for example, enabling match funding from other sources to increase the scope and scale of projects. I believe that that is something that should be considered.

On amendment 49, I take on board the commitment from the cabinet secretary to bring forward proposals on improving consultation, so I will not move the amendment when the time comes for me to do so, but I reserve the right to bring the matter back at stage 3 if those proposals do not go far enough. I hope that, in developing the proposals, the cabinet secretary considers carefully the expert bodies that I have listed in my amendment.

Amendment 130, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 4 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 42 moved—[Elena Whitham]—and agreed to.

Amendment 131 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

I assume that the same challenges exist in Edinburgh, Philip Ritchie, although you do not have the geographical challenges such as having to get from Hawick to Galashiels. Why do you think that the businesses with all these vacancies often appear to be reluctant to give opportunities to the disabled?

That is helpful. I will move on to a different subject with a question that I asked the employability partnerships in the previous panel. Every week when I speak to businesses one of the biggest issues is the challenge of recruitment. Businesses cannot fill vacancies, but we still have the significant disability employment gap: the two things are completely disconnected. What do we have to do? Why do so many employers not get the business case for closing the employment gap? There is a huge potential workforce out there at a time when businesses are struggling to fill vacancies. Why do business not understand the opportunities? What are the barriers to their understanding?

That is interesting. Ashley Ryan, do you want to add to that point?

Good morning, panel members. Almost every business that I speak to at the moment tells me about the recruitment challenges that they have. They struggle to fill vacancies, particularly in some rural areas in the Borders and in Dumfries and Galloway, where I am based. At the same time, we have a significant disability employment gap. We have this huge group of potential employees who are not getting opportunities. Why is it that we appear to be failing to make the business case for closing the disability employment gap? Why is it that businesses seem reluctant to take on people who have a particular disability? What are we failing to do? It is an easy question to kick off a Wednesday morning with, I am sure—tell us the answer. [Laughter.]

I am based in Dumfries and Galloway, and the gap is bigger in Dumfries and Galloway than it is in the Borders, which is interesting. Alasdair Scott, I am not praising you or anything, because you still have big challenges in the Borders, but is there something there that businesses are grasping that we are not doing in other parts of the country? You still have a gap there. Why is it that businesses are not seeing the opportunities?

Do businesses get the business case for this? Is there work to be done around that?

Good morning. I will ask a specific question about delivery of services. An Institute for Public Policy Research report recently noted a perceived conflict of interests for local authorities, which have, obviously, responsibility for commissioning and delivering employability services. That report suggested that local authorities might be incentivised to prioritise in-house services over third-sector services. Is that a fair comment?

Is that a fair reflection?

Is there sufficient support for raising awareness among businesses through the various funding models? Is there a gap there? Last week we met lots of young people from The Usual Place in Dumfries. In addition to support for young people, it provides a general autism awareness course for businesses. It seems to slip through every single funding model because it is not one thing or another. The Usual Place is not about individual people, but is about trying to support businesses generally to understand autism, and it struggles to get funding. Is there a gap in terms of getting the message across to businesses about opportunities, or should there be specific support for the person in the workplace?