Seòmar agus comataidhean

Do you believe that, if we had not gone through regionalisation, we would have been in a pretty similar situation with regard to industrial relations across the sector? I know that regionalisation and the introduction of national collective bargaining are not the same thing, but they are roughly concurrent processes that happened in the same period of reform.

That last point is important.

My final question is on the role of the multi-institution boards. I understand that the position of Edinburgh is not the same as, for example, that of Glasgow or Lanarkshire. However, putting aside the issues that are dealt with nationally around pay and conditions and so on, have the regional boards provided any additional value in terms of industrial relations and workforce representation? Are they providing a useful forum for some of the discussions about local and regional issues, or are those issues still primarily dealt with at an individual institution level or through national relations?

I understand why, given Edinburgh’s position. The question of the value that the regional boards now provide is something that I am keen for the committee to explore through this process.

I have one final question, somewhat related to that. You mentioned that economic inactivity rates have gone up in part because of the high number of young people in Scotland who are in FE and HE. The net result of that is that we have, on the whole, a highly educated population and yet one of the most perennial bits of feedback that we get from employers—I remember it from 10-plus years ago, when I was at the senior phase of high school, and it is still the case now—is not just that they cannot find the young people but that they cannot find the people with the right skills.

Leaving aside specific skills shortages such as not being able to find enough qualified plumbers, electricians or radiographers, for example, the other element is general employability skills, such as the ability to work as part of a team, good communication skills and so on.

I realise that this is a very broad question, but, when we have such a highly educated population, with such high levels of participation in not just the senior phase of high school but in FE and HE, why do we have this perennial issue of employers saying that the skills are just not there?

I am an enthusiastic supporter of the idea that education is not just about employability—people go into FE and HE for all sorts of reasons—but it still seems odd that we have this disconnect. We have huge participation in further and higher education and yet we have employers saying that the skills are still not there.

I would love to get into more detail on that, but I would be at risk of wearing my other committee—which was called the Education and Skills Committee—hat. Perhaps another time.

You referred to the “ethos” of the NPF, which relates to the feedback from the focus groups. The group that Daniel Johnson and I spoke to ended up landing on the word “implicit” when we asked about how their organisational plans and strategies align with the NPF. On the whole, the people we were speaking to, who were from a variety of public bodies, were not chief executives and senior managers. The folk we were speaking to were much closer to the level of delivery, and my interpretation of that word “implicit” was that, for them, rather than it being about rhyming off the specific outcomes and how they are contributing to them, the NPF is a set of guiding principles that shape the culture in their organisation .

When we are talking about the level of practitioners, is that approach of being guided and having your broad approach shaped by the NPF—rather than being able to list of specific outcomes—satisfactory? Is that what the Government wants to achieve, or are you trying to achieve a deeper, more specific level of understanding?

Thanks very much. As a follow-up question, in terms of availability of that data, I acknowledge that you just said that this is not one of SDS’s primary or core responsibilities, but if you were to conduct further research into that group of around 100,000 people, would sufficient data be available to you? Do you have the data that you would need to contact those people directly, or would you have to go through the UK Department of Work and Pensions for it?

My final question is the perennial one that is asked every time the Government tries to get broad public engagement. How, through the review exercise that is about to take place, are you going to engage with those people—that overwhelming majority of the general public who have no idea what the NPF is and who do not necessarily have an immediate and obvious relationship with the delivery of NPF outcomes—who are otherwise disengaged from the process and who do not work at the relevant level in a public agency or third sector organisation?

It was a very specific figure to ask for, so there are no worries if you do not have it immediately to hand. If you could follow up in writing on that—

It was about your ability to conduct further research in this area. Do you need to go through the DWP or do you already have access to all the information that you need?