Chamber and committees

You have talked about the importance of multiyear funding—you have been consistent in highlighting the need for that. The cabinet secretary’s indication of £25 million of funding for 2025-26 is significant in that regard. I appreciate that you are looking for more detail on this year, never mind next year. However, it is significant that the Government has previously said that it cannot make multiyear funding announcements but has then gone on to indicate what we can expect to see in 2025-26. We have seen a pledge to provide £100 million over the next five years. Would you agree that it is significant that the Government has said that? Should the cabinet secretary go further and, as a minimum, give an indication for 2026-27, to allow for further planning, to give the clarity that we have heard is needed and to provide an envelope for the multiyear funding that you have previously called for?

I welcome that. We need to understand more about the shortfalls that exist as regards skills and the investment that is required, so I look forward to receiving details on that.

Good morning, minister. In your opening comments, you said that the shortage of skills has become an even more important issue in the past few years. You talked about the financial situation and the need to understand the key issues that the sector faces. Investment in skills is one of those key areas.

Bryan Dickson, head of buildings conservation at the National Trust for Scotland, expressed the view that, although the review of the skills investment plan should create some positive action, there needs to be more investment in that area. He also argued that the concerns of the historic environment sector need to be more mainstreamed to ensure that there is enough support in areas such as skills training.

I will follow on from Alexander Stewart’s question. I noted that you said that the budgets for Historic Environment Scotland and for stonemasonry have increased. Do you agree with the evidence that we have received that there needs to be more investment in skills?

It is clear that we need greater investment in skills, and the evidence that we have received backs that up. I welcome the meetings that you are having with Mr Dey—that is positive. However, people in the sector and more widely are probably looking for more details, targets and specifics on how we will address the problems. I appreciate that you are saying that nothing has been agreed yet. Clearly, we have skills investment shortages in stonemasonry, but we are also short of traditional joiners, line plasterers, historic gardeners, surveyors and archaeologists. We hear that we need more investment in skills, but we also need more clarity from the Government about where we are going in relation to that. Earlier, you talked about the number of apprenticeships in stonemasonry. If we accept that there is a skills shortage, what analysis has the Government done of that shortage and what targets will it set to address it?

I welcome the fact that the ministers with responsibilities for skills and for heritage are meeting to discuss that matter, because it is clearly a big issue.

We are talking about the new strategy and a refreshed skills investment plan for the historic environment sector. Skills Development Scotland noted last week that a number of the SMART goals had not been achieved. I know that Covid was part of the reason for that. It also said that those working on the review were hoping to use goals more in line with available resources. We have talked about resources before more generally, but you have also said that, in relation to skills, there will never be enough resource. I think that you said earlier that you have got to balance a sense of ambition with pragmatism.

Those goals were not met before so, given the refreshed skills investment plan and the aim of being more pragmatic in line with resources, is this strategy more realistic and, therefore, less ambitious than the previous strategy and plan?

Good morning. Last week, we heard concerns about skills shortages in the sector, particularly in relation to retrofitting historic buildings. Skills Development Scotland noted that it was reviewing apprenticeships in order to ensure that skills needs were being embedded into many different qualifications, such as plastering. You have already talked about the importance of mainstreaming. We heard some evidence that the skills plan is working well in relation to digital marketing and financial planning, but, clearly, there is a big issue with retrofitting skills. We were told that the lack of apprenticeships in Scotland in areas such as stonemasonry has more to do with the low demand from employers to take on apprentices. Do you recognise that? What can Historic Environment Scotland do to encourage skills development through apprenticeships? What needs to be done to encourage more employers to take on apprentices?

No—that is helpful. Does anyone else have any comments?

We have heard how important the skills shortage is when it comes to reaching the goals in the strategy. I was struck by the National Trust for Scotland’s evidence on the Historic Environment Scotland skills investment plan—SIP—which was produced in conjunction with SDS. It said that only 30 per cent of the targets in the action plan had been delivered. There are concerns about Covid and a lack of resource. Can any other lessons be learned in relation to failure to deliver on those targets? If there is a skills shortage, what work has been done to quantify the number of apprenticeships that are needed? If there is a funding black hole and funding is the reason why we are not achieving the action points, what level of funding is required to address the skills shortage?

It would make sense for Skills Development Scotland to answer, but the National Trust for Scotland and anyone else who has input on that can respond.

Thank you.

I, too, thank the clerks and the officials for their work on producing those reports.

I will follow up on the questions from Kate Forbes and Donald Cameron on the tests in general that the Scottish Government is applying on EU alignment.

Earlier, you said that we align with EU law where appropriate and that that means where it is possible and meaningful—which means not aligning where there is no impact. This morning, we have had the example of gene editing and whether that would be desirable, and Kate Forbes raised issues about whether provisions would be in our national interests. In addition to whether something is possible or meaningful, you mentioned common sense, and surely there is also an element or test of whether the Scottish Government agrees with the proposals.