���˿���

A moment ago, you acknowledged in response to John Mason that it is not essential for every member of the public to have a comprehensive understanding of what the NPF is, but it is important that those who are involved in relevant organisations, such as public bodies, understand what we are headed towards.

I am trying to understand the difference between those who are responsible for on-the-ground delivery and those who are responsible for strategic planning. How important is it for a heart surgeon to understand NPF outcomes versus the senior management team of a hospital or health board? How important is it for a classroom teacher to know what NPF outcomes they are working towards versus the senior management team of a school or a council education department? At what level do you expect people to recognise tangible and specific NPF outcomes and their relationship to those outcomes?

I come back to the Sheffield Hallam University study around hidden unemployment—I think that is how they phrased it—that the convener mentioned, and specifically the million people who are on incapacity benefits. I preface this by saying that the report’s authors made it very clear that there is no suggestion that large numbers of people are on incapacity benefits who should not be. It is not about fraud; people who are on incapacity benefits have legitimate incapacities and that is why they are on them.

The basic thrust of the report is that a large number of people are on incapacity benefits because they do not feel that they are able to get employment, or they are searching for employment, but while they are doing so, those benefits are the most appropriate social security for them. The subset in Scotland is about 100,000 people. Do you have any data on how many of those people in Scotland would like to be in employment?

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?

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?

I am keen to get into some other points of substance. However, given that you have raised the 22-days proposal, which I asked the commissioner’s office about last week, I am interested in your perspective. My understanding was that we could not, through regulation, address the proposal that the officials laid out. The specifics of what they asked for would have to be addressed through primary legislation or, indeed, are entirely outwith the scope of the Scottish Parliament, given that we are talking about an English High Court order.

Thank you. I am keen to come back in if there is time, convener. However, I will be happy to leave it there for now, because I know that other members would like to ask questions.

When I discussed the role of the advocate with the children’s commissioner’s office, my presumption was that the advocate would be the most likely route through which ministers would become aware of a concern, but you will be aware that the children’s commissioner’s office has asked why that would be an advocate rather than specifically legal representation. I assume that, in a number of cases, the advocate might well be someone with relevant legal qualifications anyway, but that is not guaranteed. Can you expand a bit on why the regulations do not give those young people guaranteed legal representation? That could be provided alongside the advocate, since the commissioner’s office acknowledged that the advocate can play a really powerful role. However, given that the young people are unlikely to be entirely familiar with their rights under English law, never mind Scots law, there is a need for clear understanding of what their rights are under the Scottish system.