Young People’s Involvement in Education and Training (Provision of Information) (Scotland) Order 2014 [Draft]
Our second item is evidence taking on a draft affirmative instrument, namely the Young People’s Involvement in Education and Training (Provision of Information) (Scotland) Order 2014.
Thank you, convener, and good morning, colleagues.
Thank you very much, minister.
Different articles of the order set out the different responsibilities of different agencies. As a result of the order, there will be an obligation on education authorities, colleges, the Student Awards Agency for Scotland and the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council to supply information to Skills Development Scotland at least every calendar month. The order sets out the type of information that they must supply rather than its exact nature to ensure that there is local flexibility and that we do not have to keep amending the order.
Thank you for that, but I am still not absolutely clear about the process. In effect, the same information is being requested and provided by SDS.
There might well be overlaps in information, but we would expect the local authority to be best placed to supply information about, for example, a school leaving date. Gavin Gray might be able to provide you with more specific information.
The order provides a framework for the provision of information. Rather than obliging SDS to give information back to local authorities, it will allow local authorities to access that information. The school would enter information such as a school leaving date and the local authority would provide the data, which would be held in the hub as part of the information that the authority would be able to access about that individual. It is just a case of being clear about what the parameters are.
I am sorry, but I am now more confused.
Well—
I am sorry—please let me finish. Surely, the local authority would be the organisation that supplied the information. If a local authority did not know the leaving date of children in its care, that would be odd to say the least.
The local authority would not have to access the hub to find out that information; it would be able to see the information that SDS was holding in the hub, which it would be able to check. Clearly, the local authority would own the school leaving date information.
We expect Skills Development Scotland and its partners to share a range of information with each another. The raison d’être of the order is to capture information when it changes. Of course, local authorities are best placed to advise on information such as a school leaving date. We want routine engagement to take place and information to be shared, particularly when information about a young person changes—for example, when their circumstances or their needs change, or when they are at risk of disengaging from education or training.
Do not get me wrong, minister. I am very supportive of that and I think that that is what should happen on a national basis. I was highly supportive of the relevant provisions when we considered the Post-16 Education (Scotland) Bill. I am simply seeking clarity on how the process will operate.
I ask Scott Gray to answer that.
Because of the nature of their business, it might be best for some partners, such as education authorities, to share information with SDS on a fortnightly basis. For others, it might work best to share information on a monthly basis. For our purposes under the scope of the bill, we deem the provision of information at least once every calendar month to be the most efficient way of identifying whether a young person is dropping out. Nevertheless, the various partners must have data-sharing agreements in place and, to help their business processes, they might deem it appropriate to share information more than once a month.
I understand perfectly the rationale for the answer that you have given, but we were told at stage 1 that it was expected that information would be provided to SDS fortnightly. I am trying to ascertain what has changed between stage 1, when we took evidence, and now, when you are outlining that information should be provided monthly although some organisations could or might prefer to provide it fortnightly.
The reason is pragmatism. We want to capture young people, but we do not want to create an industry. Sharing information once a month fits in with some partners’ business processes and meets the scope of what we are doing in the order and the policy. For other partners, sharing will be fortnightly. That is a matter of pragmatism.
I agree entirely with the aims and objectives. As the minister has said, we desperately need to improve the quality of the information.
It is clear that Skills Development Scotland has the overall responsibility—it has the lead responsibility. Liz Smith’s point about the quality of information is well made. Quality is a main driver for the order.
You have clarified that SDS has the overall responsibility. That gives me some satisfaction that the Government sees that as the way forward. However, I am concerned because SDS’s answers to the committee were unclear about that responsibility, about how the key information would be delivered and about the timescale. It rather alarms me that one set of witnesses has said that information will be provided every two weeks when that will not be the case. I suggest that the issue should be discussed a little more.
The order is a significant step forward in ensuring a baseline. As I have said, we will have sharing of information every calendar month as a minimum. Skills Development Scotland is ultimately responsible for leading this piece of work, particularly at the operational level, and Skills Development Scotland is responsible to me. Both Skills Development Scotland and I will be more than happy to keep the committee informed and involved every step of the way as things are delivered in practice.
I accept that entirely. The order is relatively clear, although I would not agree that it is 100 per cent clear. There is a practical issue in ensuring that the best-quality information is delivered in the right places. The committee was left in considerable doubt that that would happen. Could you ask SDS to provide the committee with frequent updates on exactly how the process is working? If we do not have such updates, we will be left in the dark.
I am more than happy to ensure that that happens. I cannot change the past regarding the information that has reached the committee previously, but we can certainly move forward together with the recognition that the order is important. It is discrete and specific about who is responsible for what.
Good morning, minister. It is good to see you back on more familiar territory.
Skills Development Scotland and its partners have data protection obligations and there are limits on how long data can be retained. In those circumstances, the data that are set out in the order can normally be retained until the young person is 25.
As I said, I do not dispute the rationale for pulling together the information over the proposed period and I accept that the requirement to intervene with regard to specific individuals might ebb and flow over that period. That is self-evident. However, people who are not in education, employment or training are not limited to the 16-to-24 age group. There is therefore a concern about what will happen to young people after the age of 24.
On the purpose of the order, SDS will in most cases be under an obligation to get rid of data by the time that a young person is 25. I suppose that there could be some circumstances in which data has to be removed before then.
I will ask a brief supplementary question about something that occurred to me when Mr McArthur was speaking. It is perfectly rational and sensible that, under the Data Protection Act 1998, the data should be properly dealt with by SDS. However, if a young person reaches the age of 24 or 25 and is not in a positive destination, is having difficulties and still needs support, will SDS still just get rid of the data? I do not want to say that it would dump the data. If someone is not in a positive destination at that point, that data surely still has some value, does it not?
I will ask Ailsa Heine for input on the legal aspects. I understand that we cannot pick and choose when we comply with data protection legislation, and the order sets out a framework for how we use information about young people between the ages of 15 and 24.
It is for SDS to work out what it is required to do under data protection legislation. However, I understand that, if it was still engaging with a person at the age mentioned and was providing services to them, it could maintain the records. The order would not apply to that information, as it applies only to the sharing of information between SDS and its various partners, and SDS would not be under a requirement to share with other people the information that it held. If SDS was using the information to provide services to the person, I see no reason why it could not maintain the record but, under the order, it would be under no obligation to share that information.
That is helpful. The obligation relates not to retaining the data but to sharing it.
Yes—it is purely about sharing the information.
I know that other members want to ask questions, but this is crucial. What is the practical process for enabling what you described to happen? What steps would need to be taken to ring fence data in the hub and to separate data that may be shared or accessed by others from data that may not be shared?
Certain parties—colleges and education authorities—are required to provide information to the data hub. SDS shares information that it holds in its data hub only with colleges or education authorities, so the sharing is much more limited. I do not know exactly how the database works—Scott Gray may be able to say more about that—but those records could not be passed on to the education authorities or colleges, because the person would no longer fall within the order’s parameters.
What Ailsa Heine says is exactly right. The partners would share records that they held with SDS and, in the fullness of time, people would leave the partner organisations and there would no longer be records to share. Partners that receive information from SDS receive it in the form of a report and, to complete that report, SDS extracts information from its own information management system. That would exclude information on anyone who has gone beyond the specified age ranges and include information on only those who have previously featured in information sharing with the partner. An education authority could access only information on someone whom it had previously provided information on.
That is helpful—thank you.
The convener has touched on the risks of overlapping. I have a concern about the potential for unnecessary bureaucracy. Colleges, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council and the Scottish ministers all provide what seems to be fairly similar information on young people’s participation in or withdrawal from college courses. Similarly, the Scottish funding council and the Scottish ministers provide what appears to be similar information on young people’s participation in or withdrawal from higher education institution courses. Is that duplication and unnecessary bureaucracy?
No. The order’s purpose, which we have touched on, is to enable the sharing of information. The different organisations will need to have similar information about young people, and the order ensures consistency in the sharing of that information.
Let us touch on consistency in the sharing of information. Colleges, education authorities, the Scottish funding council and the Scottish ministers provide information to SDS, but only colleges and education authorities receive information from SDS. Does that seem correct?
We have spent considerable time on consulting all the agencies and partners on which the order places obligations, and the consultation responses have been published. We have not developed the order—or the policy surrounding the order—in a vacuum.
I suppose that the concern is that, on paper, the order looks as though it is more or less about duplication of information. You have touched on this point, but are you satisfied that the information has been rationalised as far as possible and that we are not simply creating a bureaucracy and collecting data all over the place?
There is an important point to make about quality assurance. I appreciate and understand what you are saying about duplication of information, but we need to be confident that the information is accurate and robust. The order and Skills Development Scotland’s role in all this provide additional means and measures to ensure the quality of that data, which will ensure that it is robust and correct.
Good morning, minister. Will you confirm what the term “young person” means? The order does not define it. The policy memorandum and the bill suggested that “young person” covers 16 to 24-year-olds, yet the policy note and the instrument mention 16 to 25-year-olds. I know that this sounds pedantic and silly, but does the term cover 16 to 24-year-olds or 16 to 25-year-olds?
The term covers 16 to 24-year-olds.
The term is from the Post-16 Education (Scotland) Act 2013. It is clearly defined in section 20 of the act.
I am happy with that.
I am not. I am sorry; I know that the definition of “young person” is a bit of a pedantic point, but we had trouble with it during the stage 1 evidence, which is why we are taking some time over it. Mr Adam is correct that, in some places, 16 to 24-year-olds are mentioned, but the policy note for the order mentions 16 to 25-year-olds. You have just said that it is clear in the instrument that the term covers 16 to 24-year-olds, because it refers to the act, so why does the policy note mention 16 to 25-year-olds?
I will ask officials to chip in, but I understand that the term covers people up to their 25th birthday.
Can we have absolute clarity on the point? It may sound pedantic, but it is extremely important, because it concerns a sizeable cohort of youngsters. We need to know the facts. One document says 16 to 24-year-olds and the policy note says 16 to 25-year-olds. Which is it?
The term covers 16 to 24-year-olds up to their 25th birthdays. Is that the right terminology, Gavin?
Yes.
Paragraph 9 of the policy note that is supplied with the order says:
A lot of people are affected.
For clarity, is that what we are talking about?
Yes.
Thank you very much.
Minister, can I be the first to congratulate you on your promotion?
It is subject to parliamentary approval.
It is subject to parliamentary approval this afternoon. It has not happened yet, which is why nobody has said anything.
Well, I offer congratulations, anyway.
I suppose that I am more confident. Given that the order does not cover information from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, it would be foolish to have absolute confidence. We made attempts to get that information via two United Kingdom Government bills, but one was talked out and the other was withdrawn. We will continue to seek opportunities to make an arrangement with HMRC.
Do you have a ballpark figure in your head for how much the number of people whom we cannot find should be reduced by? I might be wrong, but my recollection is that we cannot identify what about 17,000 young people do between leaving school and joining the unemployment stats. Do you have plans to reduce that figure by a certain amount?
We want to reduce the 17,000 figure. It is important to stress that we are talking about young people whose destination is unknown. They may be young people who have disengaged or they may be in a destination that we have not yet ascertained.
We will get a lot more data from the system. How will you report that data? Will it come to Parliament? How will reporting work? Will the data simply be in SDS’s annual report? I hope that the data will be made available more regularly than that.
I hope that we will be proactive with the information that the order helps us to gather. The information is important to inform the way forward. We want to get below the headline figures and to understand far more about a young person’s journey and what works for young people, so that we can tailor a range of our policies.
Will you report at the same time as the annual population survey statistics are produced, to give unemployment stats some context? It would be sensible to produce a report based on the information, say, every three months.
We could look at that suggestion. I agree that regular reporting of the information is crucial, because it informs everyone’s thinking and the development of policy.
How will the order change SDS’s operation in relation to the information that it holds? For example, I have always found it difficult to identify how many people have done more than one get ready for work programme. I have met a lot of young people who have participated in many employability programmes, but SDS cannot quantify the numbers involved. Will the new framework allow SDS to hold its data in a more accountable and transparent way that MSPs can access?
I hope that the order will enable SDS and all its partners to gather far more meaningful information, so that we can monitor and track the journey of individual young people, and that SDS will be in a position to collate the information to give a broad national picture. Ultimately, we are gathering information so that we can make a difference to young people’s lives. We must have a stronger evidence base about the success of interventions and about how each intervention helps a young person’s journey towards and into work.
I want to be absolutely clear about who is responsible. It will be the responsibility of an education authority, a college or any other part of the education establishment to flag up that a young person has, for example, fallen out of education or an employability programme and that SDS is responsible for making an intervention. Is that correct?
In many instances, that will be the case, but that depends on the information that is supplied about a young person and the information that has changed. If a housing problem has resulted in a young person disengaging from education or training, SDS might not be the best organisation to follow that up; if the young person has a substantial social work background, there may be somebody better.
Surely one person has to be ultimately responsible, and that has to be SDS. I am thinking about the logic of the named person, for example. The strength of that system is that one individual is ultimately responsible for all the information and everything to do with the person’s journey. Surely that also applies here and SDS is ultimately responsible for everything to do with 16 to 24-year-olds.
Yes—SDS is responsible. As I said, it has lead responsibility, but it may have a sensible and pragmatic discussion with partners—particularly in relation to young people who have complex and difficult backgrounds—about whether someone else is better placed to do the follow-up. There may be someone whom the young person already knows and has a relationship with, as opposed to yet another person stepping into their life.
But SDS is ultimately responsible.
Yes.
I will follow up on that with a supplementary question, again for clarity. You gave an example of housing being the underlying problem that may result in somebody falling out of training or education and said that there could be an underlying issue connected with social work. That is perfectly understandable. Under the order, SDS will not share information with either the social work department or the housing department. If information goes from one of those departments to SDS that a young person is in danger of falling or has fallen out of education or training because of an underlying housing problem, what will SDS do? It does not deal with housing problems and it will not share information with the housing department, so what will it do?
SDS will have to contact the relevant agency that deals with the housing problem, if that is the example that we are going with. A lot will depend on the young person’s age and whether they are at school, in education or—
So SDS will contact the relevant agency. I am just using this example as it is one that you gave. SDS will contact the housing department. It is obviously welcome that it will try to help, but I am trying to clarify the position. What would the contact be? SDS is not going to share the information that it has, so what would it do?
Do you want to answer that, Scott?
Yes. The sharing is really a signposting measure. If SDS is alerted to the fact that somebody has dropped out, the sharing improves the chances of SDS finding out about that, but the information sharing does not replace the professional contact. All that the order really does is to try to get the right information to the right professional. All local authorities have their own processes in place. If a young person has dropped out, regardless of the reason, the SDS front-line member of staff will be aware, but they will only be aware that the person is no longer attending either college or the training provision. It is then that the professional will take over and contact the individual or the training provider and say, “I understand that Scott is no longer there. What has happened?”
Sorry—maybe it is me, but I am still struggling a little bit. When you say “the professional”, do you mean the professional within SDS?
Yes.
Would the professional within SDS then contact the housing department and say that there is a problem, or would they not do that?
You would imagine so. The original point was about SDS, through the scope of the information sharing, finding out that someone had dropped out. It is more of a procedural thing for SDS, but I would imagine that if, through the scope of that sharing, SDS was alerted to the fact that someone had dropped out of their course of provision, it would want to understand the circumstances around why the young person had left. The sharing of information would trigger that conversation.
The conversation that you are talking about is between the SDS professional and whom?
This gets into how SDS provides services to individuals. It would either be with the individual themselves, to ask them why they had dropped out, or with the training or learning provider, to ask why the young person was no longer there.
So the SDS professional does not contact the housing department.
I imagine that that would be the next step down the line.
So they do contact the housing department.
In that circumstance, you would imagine so. The first conversation would be to understand the circumstances around why the person had dropped out.
I understand that, but I am trying to understand the process. If somebody contacts SDS and says that a young person is in danger of dropping out or has dropped out because of a housing problem, the SDS professional contacts the individual, and they might have a conversation about it. Does SDS then contact the housing department and ask about the problem and why the person is having difficulty with their housing?
I would imagine that SDS would contact the local authority.
You would imagine so.
If SDS has established why a young person has dropped out from education or training, it will have to forward that information to a relevant agency. If the reason is to do with housing, you would expect SDS to contact the local authority. If the young person was known to social work, it might contact the social work department.
There is no argument about that, and I am 100 per cent behind the intention of the order. The committee’s role is to follow up on the evidence that we received during stage 1 consideration of the Post-16 Education (Scotland) Bill and to clarify that the process is practical and realistic and will work.
Absolutely not. Let me reiterate this. I cannot turn the clock back. I have been listening carefully to the issues that you have raised about the stage 1 evidence. In the here and now, I expect professionals involved with young people to act on the information that they receive.
Listening to those last few exchanges, I cannot help but raise the issue of the named person and the getting it right for every child process. Some people under the system fall within the age range covered by GIRFEC. I note from schedule 1 to the draft order that education authorities will be expected to supply
The short answer is yes. Information needs to be shared and linked.
Given the time, short answers and short questions are useful. I apologise—I know that it is mostly my fault.
I wish to clarify something about the last answer that you gave to the convener, minister. You said that it was your “expectation” that those involved would act on the information, if there was an issue concerning the housing department. Do you believe that that would actually happen? There is a difference between that and a Government minister saying that there is an expectation of that happening. Do you think that it will happen? It is crucial to the quality of the information that is shared and to the help that we give to the youngster that that problem is sorted.
We are straying into the area of professional practice and away from the terms of the order. When it comes to my responsibilities as a minister and the agencies that I sponsor, we will continue to work daily, if need be, and give assurances and further information to the committee to satisfy its concerns about what happens in practice. Professionals have clear responsibilities, and it is appropriate that I state clearly my expectation that people exercise those professional responsibilities. However, the purpose of the order is for people to act on the information that is shared.
I welcome the clarity in the minister’s statement, and her expectation. However, paragraph 3 of the order says:
With respect, it is a very focused and quite discrete order, which is specific about what information is shared with whom and when. It is important that we move forward with the order to ensure that we have more consistent practice in the sharing of data. We are straying into the area of professional practice. One thing for sure is that we cannot expect professionals to act if they do not have the information. It is important to the nuts and bolts of the system that we ensure that they get that information.
With respect, we cannot ask or expect professionals to act when they do not have the latitude to do so. You have set out clearly what your expectation would be. However, in respect of the sharing of information, it is difficult to see how somebody in SDS could have the sorts of conversations with housing or social work officials that we have discussed, on the basis of the order that we are about to pass. Such conversations may not be as numerous as the conversations that need to be had with the bodies outlined in column 1 of the order, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility that, on occasion, housing or social work officials will be required to act in those areas.
I think that I have been clear about the purpose of the order and the responsibilities of professionals. However, I will ask Ailsa Heine to add some comments.
It is worth saying that there is nothing in the order that prevents SDS from taking action and speaking to local authorities and housing authorities. As the minister has explained, the order is quite discrete. It is trying to provide for the provision of information to SDS so that SDS has information on which it can act. All the information listed in schedule 1, to which the member has just referred, is information that is to be provided to SDS. That is the bulk of the order; less of it is concerned with the provision of information by SDS—
Excuse me but, with respect, the paragraph that I read out was headed “Provision of information by Skills Development Scotland”.
That refers to schedule 2, not schedule 1. Schedule 2 sets out the information that SDS is to provide and that is much more limited in the sense that SDS provides information only to colleges and education authorities. It is a much more restricted set of information because it relates to providing information only to the bodies that are providing the training or education so that they are aware of support needs in particular—it is about that type of information.
It is helpful to clear up the difference between what the order does and what SDS currently does. Liam McArthur still looks puzzled, but we will move on.
Good morning, minister. I think that you may have answered my question in answering the questions about the pragmatic approach to the timescales. The consultation report was published in March. Did the consultation reveal any significant areas of concern? If so, how were they resolved?
The feedback that we got from the consultation was again about partners’ issues to do with quality. Everybody was keen to understand how we could address those issues through sharing information. There were no significant concerns about taking this forward. Everybody bought into it. It was more about asking how we get it done.
We move to agenda item 3. I invite the minister to speak to and move the motion.
I have nothing to add.
Do members wish to add any comments?
To go back to my earlier point about what would happen in relation to the data when a young person ceases to fall within the ambit of the order, I understood the minister to say that the data would be disposed of appropriately. However, in response to questions from the convener, officials indicated that where it was felt to be necessary for SDS to continue working with that individual, the order would simply cease to allow SDS to share that data with those listed in the schedule. I am therefore slightly unclear as to what happens to the data. Does SDS simply retain it but stop sharing it, or does it dispose of it when a young person reaches the age of 25 and, at that stage, does not appear to be in need of engagement with SDS?
As no other members wish to comment at this point, does the minister wish to respond to that point?
SDS will retain information until there is no further use for it, in compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998.
The question is, that motion S4M-09744, in the name of Angela Constance, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 0, Abstentions 2.
I thank the minister and her officials for coming along this morning. It was very helpful. I will suspend the meeting to allow a changeover of witnesses.
Previous
Interests