Official Report 272KB pdf
Good morning. This is the 11th meeting of the committee this year. Today we begin stage 1 consideration of the Education and Training (Scotland) Bill. The bill was introduced by the Executive on 28 April. Papers are available for members.
As members know, ministers pledged in the partnership document to promote lifelong learning through the introduction of individual learning accounts. In "Making it work together: A programme for government", a target of opening 100,000 such accounts by 2002 was set. The overall policy objective is to help people to overcome financial barriers to learning and to encourage them to invest in learning throughout their lifetimes with help from the state and, where appropriate, employers.
Thank you, Mr Stewart. Would you like to add anything at this point, Mr Wilson?
Not at this time.
That was a helpful introduction. Members have had a chance to examine the papers.
Yes. The intention is that people will not need to open a bank account to have access to ILAs. The qualifying arrangements in the Education and Training (Scotland) Bill will allow people to have access to a membership scheme, but the power in the Westminster bill will, as you say, allow for the creation of a financial account that people could use if they wanted to open a savings account that was separate to the individual learning account. Currently, it is not the intention that people will be required to open a bank account. That power would be available for use in a wider sense, if required, but it is not part of the initial scheme.
I have seen reference to the development of the initiative through a customer service provider. Has such an organisation been identified or is there a type of organisation that ministers envisage would undertake that task?
We have—with our colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment—been involved in procurement. We are talking to a private sector company about that and are close to concluding contract arrangements. We hope that the arrangements will be finalised sometime in June. The company has been heavily involved in developing some of the details of how the arrangements will operate. It was always intended that a partnership approach would be taken whenever possible.
Is there a close proximity between that type of work and the work of the Scottish university for industry? I expected you to say that SUFI would be that body.
The Scottish university for industry will run the helpline that will give people information on courses and the individual learning accounts. However, we do not intend the Scottish university for industry to operate the individual learning account system. The university already has a substantive task and we would not want to overload its remit. The helpline will act as a one-stop shop for the individual who wants information about access to learning and finance. The behind-the-scenes arrangements with the contractor to which my colleague Allan Wilson referred will not impinge on the way in which the individual learner can access information and act on it.
The best way of describing it is to say that SUFI will provide the front office service and that the customer service provider will do the back office work.
As a consequence of the experience of the pilot projects, the requirement to open a bank account was dropped. However, it is still impossible to enter into contractual arrangements with others—employers and trade unions—who might want to make the initial contribution on behalf of the individual learner. Does not that mean that there is still a fairly substantial obstacle for individuals, because they either have to make the initial contribution or enter into another arrangement with a third party? It would be better if the arrangement with the service provider could be made directly with the trade union or the employer.
We expect the learning provider to share out the bill. If the employer voluntarily agrees to contribute a certain sum, they will be billed for that. Similarly, if another party wanted to contribute, they would do so through the same mechanism. There is no intention to put that money into a bank account. We do not think that that will cause any difficulty for employers; indeed, we expect it to make the scheme more attractive. We are not convinced that employers would be keen to put money into someone's bank account, because they might be concerned about how it was used. However, if it were going directly to the purpose for which it was intended, there would be no room for doubt. That would also simplify the tax relief that the employer would get on that money.
The individual would still have to pay the first £25.
That is correct. One of the major policy intentions behind ILAs is to encourage individuals to share in the investment in their learning. If they do not contribute, it could be argued that they are not investing themselves in the scheme. The minimum of £25 is required for the first year, after which their contribution will depend on the balance of the fee paid after the discount.
I want to clarify that point. If someone on a low income cannot afford £25 and a trade union or a friendly society offers to pay the money on that person's behalf, does that leverage out the contribution from the public purse? We have been given evidence that poses the question: "If the payment for courses is going directly to a provider, how do we know whether the £25 has come from a trade union, and is that an impediment to the individual learner?" That touches on the social issues of broadening access to learning.
If the individual committed £25, they would be able to access the incentives. If that money were given to the individual by a relative, a friend or another organisation, they would still be able to access the incentives. The individual must commit the £25 in order to lever in the public money. We would not expect the employer to contribute the £25; the employer would be eligible for tax relief on any contribution over and above the £25 paid by the individual and the incentives from the Government.
Are you making a distinction between an employer and a third party?
Yes.
Mr Stewart mentioned regulations. Have those been drafted?
Mr McLeish wrote to the convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee with draft illustrative regulations to show the sort of regulations that might be made under the bill.
Convener, I suggest that it might be helpful for us to have a copy of those regulations.
We already have a copy.
Are they attached to a letter?
They came with the rest of the committee papers. The specific paper is headed: "Memorandum to the Subordinate Legislation Committee by the Scottish Executive".
I have it.
Under the Finance Bill, the intention is that any employer's contributions will be tax exempt and that any such contribution will not be taxable in relation to the employee. Furthermore, such contributions will not attract national insurance contributions.
I refer you to the submission from Scottish Enterprise Grampian, which operates one of the pilot schemes in Scotland. Have the observations made by Scottish Enterprise Grampian in any way altered the department's attitude towards ILAs?
Yes. We are keen to learn from the Scottish pilots and those that have taken place in England. Early in the Grampian pilot, it emerged that having to open a bank account was a barrier for many individuals. That is one of the reasons why we adopted a membership model rather than a bank account approach.
I may be straying on to a subject about which Marilyn Livingstone will want to ask, but I would like Mr Stewart to clarify how accreditation or the portability of the additionality that the learner may acquire will be acknowledged. The scheme seems to be good and important, but it may be of limited significance if someone who has benefited from an ILA cannot demonstrate to a future employer that their abilities have been increased by that experience.
That would depend on the type of learning opportunity taken up by the learner. If they undertake a form of learning that leads to certification, there will clearly be a record. If they undertake a taster course or a pre-access course that is not formally recognised, they will at least have a record of having undertaken that learning. The Scottish university for industry is in discussion with the Scottish Qualifications Authority to determine ways of recording such learning, even if it is not actually certified, so that learners will have a personal record that they can show prospective employers.
What customer services provider are you negotiating with? Is it the enterprise company?
Scottish Enterprise is doing much of that work, but not the full range, as the national system is not yet in operation.
Some of the evidence that we have taken has emphasised the importance of widening access to the adviser and to the guidance and support that is given. What role would the customer service provider have in relation to the individual learning account advisers?
The issue of advice might relate more to the Scottish university for industry. People will get from the helpline advice and information on learning and financial support. If it becomes clear that the individual needs more in-depth guidance than can be given by phone, they would be referred to a guidance provider in their area. Such guidance might or might not be free. If an in-depth discussion about the financial arrangements under the individual learning account was required, the person might be referred to the customer services provider. The guidance role would be played primarily by the Scottish university for industry, and then through local guidance provision.
On the promotional aspects of encouraging people to call the network, you said that some groups of people—not necessarily the target group that we are considering—would find that beneficial. What efforts are being made to ensure that the target groups are encouraged to get involved? Who will ensure that they are?
The Scottish university for industry will have to get the message across about learning opportunities and the availability of ILAs. Both the Scottish university for industry and Scottish Enterprise are working up marketing strategies to get the message across to those who are not involved with learning and might not dream of going over the doorstep of a college or university. The marketing will be a big challenge, as we will have to engender a culture change. That will form a significant part of the expenditure that I mentioned.
What other agencies are involved in delivering that? Is the Benefits Agency involved, for instance, or are community groups?
The marketing strategy is being developed by Scottish Enterprise in consultation with the local enterprise companies, which will play a crucial role. It will be easy to get the message through to learning providers and employers. To involve the other group that we are talking about, we are examining ways in which the social inclusion partnerships and other community groups can be used. We want to find out what material they will need and how we can develop a strategy with them. We have involved the unions in discussions. They will be able to get the message across to their members, some of whom may not have been involved in learning opportunities before. Other routes will be developed as part of the overall strategy.
The main organisation is Scottish Enterprise, however. Has its role in the overall scheme been clarified? Is it happy to assume the responsibility?
Yes. The local enterprise companies will have a key role in the promotion of the ILAs. They are committed to that role. Their range of local contacts will help to get an on-the-ground presence for the message to complement the national messages from the Scottish university for industry. A range of bodies at local and national level need to work together to promote the scheme effectively.
That is the most crucial point in the evidence that has been submitted. I was struck by the material that we received from the managing director of Scottish Power Learning. He said:
Indeed. The concept must be widely accepted by people in general and I accept the point that those might include a fair proportion of the usual suspects. When the initiative has been established, the regulations must be used to target assistance on groups of people and types of learning. It is a two-stage process: getting the general message across and then targeting assistance.
That is why I asked the questions that I asked. I was concerned that the centralised, helpline approach would be fine for those people who were already buying into the system—the usual suspects—but not for those who feel excluded from learning, for one reason or another, and those in low-paid jobs, whom we want to target. There is a lot of emphasis on this model being demand-driven, rather than supply-driven. I think that the questions that I asked and Annabel Goldie's questions about the type of qualifications that are being offered are relevant. Are you convinced that, once you have done the marketing and reached those people who need it most, the support services will be sufficient?
A key issue for learning centres that are accredited to the Scottish university for industry will be to provide support services for learners. We must ensure that we are not only providing learning, but making available advice and information that will help people move on to further learning. That will mean both that people continue with learning and that they do not aim simply to get the £150 incentive—which is the up-front bit of the ILA scheme—but think about what they can go on to do and how they can use their 20 per cent or 80 per cent discount.
Given that there is a limited budget and a target number for this scheme, whose job will it be to monitor the people who are receiving the benefit? Will the private sector company monitor that as the applications come in, or will the Scottish Executive be responsible for doing that? I presume that the number of those taking part in the scheme will have to be monitored on a regular basis, so that if there is drifting, special initiatives can be taken to boost the scheme.
Most of the information that needs to be collected will end up with the customer service provider. One of the requirements of the contract will be to provide a management information service, which we will be able to access. That will provide us with the information that will allow us to monitor what is happening on the ground. Monitoring will be undertaken by the Scottish Executive and, to some extent, by Scottish Enterprise, but the data will in most cases be held by the customer service providers.
Will the LECs be the providers?
No. The main role of the LECs will be to promote the ILAs. They will not be involved in the management of ILAs, which will be done centrally through the customer service provider, working with SUFI. All the information will, at some stage, go through the customer service provider, which will provide most of the administrative services—issuing information packs, collecting information on the outcome of learning episodes that people have undertaken, and so on. It will be for people like us to analyse the data and to monitor it effectively, to ensure that we are getting what we want from the ILAs, to assess their success and to identify areas where marketing has not been as effective as it needs to be, so that we can make changes as necessary.
Could you clarify the point about the Executive getting what it wants from this initiative? The Executive will get what it wants only if it specifies to the customer service provider what it is looking for. The question that is emerging from the discussion so far is whether the Executive has in mind people from particular backgrounds, with a history of lack of access to learning, without whose participation in this initiative it will not be deemed successful. Will the Executive say to the customer service provider at the outset that the initiative will be a success if, for example, 50 per cent of the people who take up ILAs are people who have not participated in learning in the past 10 years?
The intention is that initially this should be a universal offer and that anybody aged 18 and over should be able to apply. To that extent, the scheme will not be targeted specifically. However, I understand what you are driving at. The marketing of this initiative will aim to encourage the non-traditional learner to take it up. Through the contract, we will monitor the type of activity that is going on. At this stage, it is not our intention to set percentage targets in the way that you suggest. However, once the initiative is established, that kind of tailoring and targeting may achieve our long-term intention—to get learning into areas where, to date, it has been limited.
When examining the illustrative regulations and the particular references to the conditions for qualifying persons, I noticed that one proviso is that the person, if employed, should be working in Scotland. As I understand it, ILAs are also to be available to self-employed people.
Yes.
I would have thought, therefore, that there would be a reference in the regulations to self-employed status. I am referring to paragraph 2(2)(c) of the illustrative regulations.
I think that you will find that the self-employed are covered by paragraph 2(2)(a), because such people will be resident in Scotland.
The point that is being made is that paragraph 2(2) suggests that an applicant has to meet all the conditions set out in sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). It is simply a drafting point.
There may be a technical legal answer to that. However, the intention is that people will be eligible for ILAs whether they are employed, self-employed or unemployed.
I think that that may need to be clarified.
We will check that point.
I apologise for being slightly late. I thought that we had plumped for 9.30 rather than the more hair-shirt 9 am.
We are a hair-shirt committee, so it is no surprise.
I should have known better.
We shall continue to rub your nose in it.
Such is one's lot.
Ministers are examining the issue of what costs should be included in particular offers. They will no doubt make an announcement on that relatively soon.
It will be very important for all rural parts of Scotland, not least the Highlands.
There is no specific target, because employers' contributions will be voluntary. The provisions of the Finance Bill will make tax relief available to employers on such contributions. That mechanism provides an encouragement to make voluntary contributions.
We will be monitoring the degree of leverage that we get out of it. We will take note of the difference in the level of employer contribution as time progresses.
Thank you for answering those questions. We shall reflect on the issues that we have discussed and produce a report of our views.
I am Fiona Malcolm from Scottish Enterprise Grampian and I am delighted to be invited along today.
I am Bruce Armitage, director of lifelong learning for Scottish Enterprise Grampian. My colleague Fiona has been the project manager for our individual learning account pilot.
My name is Bobby Gordon. I have been working with Scottish Enterprise Fife, project-managing the ILA pilot that we have been running in Fife.
Good morning. I am Gail Sibbald, senior executive with responsibility for three ILA pilots running in Fife.
We have the papers that Scottish Enterprise Grampian submitted to the Scottish Executive. We also have the summary conclusions of the evaluation of the Fife pilots. Members have looked at those papers and will certainly have some questions. Do you have any brief introductory remarks?
I should update our position, as there have been changes since the submission was made. We now have 1,760 active accounts in the Grampian area, with a further 300 awaiting processing. We are receiving around 150 applications a week at the moment from a variety of occupational sources.
I should also bring you up to date. The Fife model has always been an employer-led model. We have taken the approach that we work with the company in the first instance to identify what is needed and collaborate to draw up a development plan with the individual. Scottish Enterprise Fife would like the employer-led approach to be emphasised in the roll-out.
I found the paper that Scottish Enterprise Grampian sent to the Scottish Executive very candid about the lessons learnt. It is a useful document for us to reflect on at this stage. Unfortunately, you missed most of our discussion with representatives of the Executive. In the top paragraph on the second-last page of the document that you sent to the Executive, you say:
To give you some context, I will explain the path that we were on. We were following decisions that had been made by the Department for Education and Employment rather than actively making decisions about the client group ourselves. Fiona Malcolm will explain the practicalities of targeting non-learners, those in low-skill occupations and those who are low-waged, which was the intention of our pilot from day one.
How have you done that?
We have specifically targeted employers and intermediary organisations—primarily learning providers, of which we are working with some 48 at the moment—who have good connections into the sectors we are interested in. National training organisations that represent sectors where there are low levels of engagement in learning clearly have a role in delivering, or at least promoting, the programme.
I would like to give you some examples of how that has worked in practice. I have been involved with this since the beginning—I have been there, I have done it. We spent a considerable amount of time trying to put together some quirky advertising and promotional materials. We used local radio, local television and the local press. We certainly raised awareness, but we did not get hundreds of people calling up asking whether they could get involved. It did not work. At this time last year, I was a very worried person, having to run a pilot in which nobody wanted to participate.
It may be useful for the committee for me to indicate how the Rosyth pilot differed from that one so members can consider both pilots within their contexts.
Certainly.
We deliberately targeted a particular area of Fife, Rosyth, because the naval base there was moving away. The site was being converted into a Europarc and there were lots of new things happening. Babcock Rosyth was starting to decline as a source of employment and the supply chain was starting to be affected. The background, therefore, was one in which a lot of change was taking place. The people involved in the process had to reconsider their skills and knowledge base.
Have all the 1,000 participants in the Fife pilot come from contact between your organisation and companies?
The employers were pivotal in allowing the evaluation to take place, but the individuals were volunteers rather than conscripts to the process.
I have several questions, some of which may be of general application—I will welcome the opinions of all members on them—but, first, I will address Fife specifically. I was intrigued that your most interesting conclusion, No 38, came at the very end of your submission. It said:
If we do not add purpose and meaning to what we try to do, we will end up with frivolous training, which does not mean anything to the individual. Training must mean something to the individual. That is why we spent so much time with companies finding out the direction in which they were heading, and where the development opportunities would be in the next few years. Doing that brings purpose to the process. Someone can gear their personal development plan to acquiring computer skills or supervisory management skills.
That is very helpful.
One of the areas that we concentrate on is the small business sector. We are now holding hands with managing directors, and we have put personnel development plans in place for them, so that their knowledge base is equipped to take their businesses forward as well. All those elements are within the project.
Thank you for that full answer.
First, I should like to explain about ADVANCE. We were, and remain, extremely happy with the brand ADVANCE. However, it is not the chosen national brand, and as part of a national network, we accede to that. Research was done nationally, in which ADVANCE did not come out as well as other naming strategies. Therefore, we have stopped using ADVANCE, because we are part of a national scene. Had we used the Scottish Enterprise Grampian programme, we would have continued with ADVANCE, because one cannot embed a brand in nine months. You are right on that point: it takes much longer. We had no adverse comments on the branding, or the packaging.
What is the buzz word now?
I think that we are calling them individual learning accounts.
Or just Scottish learning accounts. We are not quite sure.
It is riveting, is it not?
It has a certain ring to it.
It is certainly not ADVANCE.
The problem is that people are phoning me up and saying, "It is about my ADVANCE application," and "Can I become an ADVANCE provider?" The terminology is already in use.
Such are the pitfalls of piloting.
The intermediaries are still important.
Absolutely. On the other hand, if I am a non-learner—if I am one of the 37 per cent of the Scottish employed adult work force who do not engage in learning—I am not sure whether this is for me. I need somebody, either my employer or a local learning provider who is working with my employer, to talk to me about the applicability of individual learning accounts. I might also be attracted to the £150. I might simply say, "I will have that. I will apply for that." How do I then use it effectively and productively, so that it can further my employability and my career and sustain the employment that I am in? Such discussions are best held with local individuals who can quickly factor people into appropriate learning locally, with as little hassle for them as possible. Therefore, I differentiate between awareness and delivery.
That is helpful.
Not at the moment, because the way in which we set up our pilot was pretty basic. The relationship involves the learner with an employer, the provider and the local enterprise company. We are the administration—the back house—and take care of payment, which gives the provider a point of contact for matters such as checking eligibility, submitting invoices, chasing payment and so on. Although the employer agrees the learning with the individual and the provider, he is not involved with financial aspects such as invoicing. That has been deliberately set up to simplify the process for the learner and employer, although it gives the providers a bit of hassle, because it means that they have to deal with me. However, I wonder how a centralised system for administration and customer service will pan out in practice. For example, who will the provider or the individual talk to?
I want to press Scottish Enterprise Grampian a little further on that point. Has the pilot scheme demonstrated that effective delivery can be achieved locally—in other words, that there can be a structure that meets local need in a composite and comprehensive sense?
Yes.
In light of that, should the national perspective be confined only to the national delivery of ILAs—full stop—with everything else devolved down to local areas?
Yes, because we have already established local relationships such as payment systems and contractual arrangements through other programmes.
May I have a final question, convener?
An absolutely last, final, brief one.
I have been struck by the proposal that the employer should make only a voluntary contribution, because there is an old adage saying that if you do not pay for it, it is no good. Is there a danger that, if employers are not required to make a contribution, the process might be depreciated in their eyes; or if the employer knows that he does not need to make a contribution, will he think, "Great—it's a freebie"? I do not know the answer to that question, and would welcome your views.
There are two ways to consider that problem. First, as some employers will not co-operate with individual learning, building in a mandatory employer contribution might disfranchise individuals who wish to develop their skills and employability, but who do not have an employer who is prepared to help them. A tremendous advantage of the ILA is that, when push comes to shove, it should default to the individual who is learning.
Following the question on barriers to access and getting the people who need it most to respond, have you looked at the additional barriers to getting back into education, once finance is provided? Low-paid workers usually work long hours, sometimes on shifts, and they might have insecure employment. I can see the logic of targeting people in the workplace, but sometimes that employment is interrupted, and that can interrupt the learning process as well.
That is what we were trying to find out in our pilot project. One of the reasons why we adopted an employer-led model was that we wanted to go into and to influence the workplace. I have not worked with any local authorities, but I have worked with small or medium-sized businesses, which have real problems with releasing people, as well as the other problems that have been mentioned. That is why the partnership arrangements with our learning providers are vital. We have partners from the Employment Service who give us leads, as well as people from Fife Enterprise and all the education and training providers. We discuss such issues at our meetings. For example, we discussed whether we could have learning centres in Rosyth, so that people can attend after work, or training courses on Saturday mornings.
Perhaps I can pick up the question on networks and also clarify the position on approved training. In Grampian, that includes everything in the Scottish Qualifications Authority catalogue on a unit-by-unit basis, so we are not putting up any barriers in terms of full VQs. Given that it was a pilot open to the public, we needed some form of quality assurance, so we counted the training if there was some form of accreditation at the end of the learning period.
We have not worked with the local authority in the pilot scheme, but I have had several discussions with our local authority about rolling out the scheme; it has clearly indicated that it wants to focus on individuals who are not currently engaged in learning. It is working up several different approaches to encourage those people, and efforts have been focused on the low-skilled and poorly qualified. As well as the local authority, union activity and third-party contributions support that learning.
Is there any evidence that we are changing the culture within the companies that we are dealing with, rather than companies approaching the scheme as some sort of freebie? In its submission, Scottish Enterprise Grampian asked whether such an attitude was acceptable.
Early on, I was very concerned that we would open the project and I would receive phone calls from companies asking for 1,000 ILAs—everyone would get one. I was rather worried about what I would do if Aberdeenshire Council rang up and asked for all the accounts, even though I would have met my target. That has not happened. What has happened is that when an employer phones up to say that they are interested, it tends to be because they are thinking about implementing a learning programme or want to promote learning among their employees and they see the scheme as a good way in. Employers have not approached the scheme with the attitude that the LEC will pay for something that they were going to do anyway.
That gives the individual a say and some independence from their employer.
Absolutely. That has always been flagged up. I have told employers that they cannot force people to take up ILAs—and they insist that they would not—because everyone who participates in our pilot has to sign a learning plan that confirms that it is the learning they want to do. We have 1,700 applications on our database and so far I have not had one call from someone who says that they have been made to do something that was not what they wanted to do. That has not become an issue and I hope that it never will.
It is still too early to say whether we are making a difference. In the Fife pilot, we have a rigorous evaluation process, and we intend to monitor individuals long after the end of the pilot. I suggest that that is what we should be doing as we roll out individual learning accounts; we should monitor the process not necessarily on a year-to-year basis, but over a number of years.
Duncan McNeil has managed to ask most of my questions.
Excellent—that will speed up the process.
I was quite concerned to hear the Fife contingent say that the approach to widening access was employer-led. The aims and objectives of the legislation are about meeting individuals' needs: I was going to ask about that, but my questions have already been satisfied.
Perhaps you could just leave it at the Fife question, and we will come back to you.
Throughout the pilots, the colleges have been very much involved. They were involved in the development of learning directories and their distribution to organisations. They continue to be involved. They have been very helpful with individuals in identifying training needs and are flexible enough to offer that training.
I also asked about trade union involvement.
There is to be an announcement at Rosyth today that the trade unions will work with their members to identify 500 learning accounts. That has come about because of the discussions that have taken place with the unions. We take their involvement very much into account in our approach.
Does Marilyn want to ask her Grampian question?
Yes—it is about widening access.
There is no doubt that lower-income groups face more difficulties in accessing learning. It is a question not just of finances but of logistics: of transport and of getting the information about what is available. I would also highlight the fact that those who have not been engaged in learning for a while need robust guidance support.
I asked the Scottish Enterprise representatives who were here earlier about guidance and was assured that if an individual needed extra support and guidance, it would be up to the locality to ensure that it was forthcoming.
Like the convener, I was impressed by the submission of evidence on the pilot projects—I found that helpful. There were different styles of writing, but they were equally illustrative in their own way.
It is great fun doing a pilot, because you can make up wee rules. I was summoned to the local authority to have a chat about how it might work. The first thing we stumbled upon was that the local authority did not feel comfortable about asking individuals to give £25. The UNISON representative said, "That's okay; we're happy to give the £25 for our members." While the council could not afford to pay individuals for the work, it was concerned about individuals having to use their own time for some of the work. As the council saw it, the individual's contribution would be their commitment and their willingness to participate, using some of their own time. They might have to stay an hour after school some days to do some of the work, but that would be made clear to them.
We can get the individual to sign saying that they have made their contribution, but it is difficult to track where they get it from.
The crux of the matter is that if the vision of lifelong learning is ever to be realised and to be targeted in the longer term, the ILA is simply an introduction. In the Fife experience, the most significant issue to emerge was how to translate the ILA into purposeful training. In the pilot, to what extent did that introduction lead to the individuals involved opening qualifying accounts, as is envisaged in the longer term?
One of the difficulties was that originally a banking institution was involved and, under banking regulations, we had to get details and fill out forms. We have dispensed with that process, which has made it far easier for us to open ILAs and to keep track of them.
In the original policy documents, the £25 individual contribution was related to the idea of saving to learn by opening a bank account. The removal of the requirement to open a bank account from the pilots, and from the first stages of the roll-out of learning accounts, made the individual contribution a rather more difficult proposition to put to an individual. We involved a financial institution and opened 40 real accounts—the proposal made more sense in that context. However, it is a bit more difficult to present in our current situation.
Going through the trauma of opening 100 accounts in the two new pilot schemes was difficult.
I read the submissions from Grampian and Fife with great interest. From your presentations today, the common feature seems to be that local delivery is best. If that is correct—as I am persuaded it is by your arguments and descriptions—I am puzzled about the role of the Scottish university for industry.
A key role for SUFI is to promote and broker learning generically. That role is paramount within the context of learning accounts. SUFI has a major opportunity to build a learning culture, and individual learning accounts are a financial device, or intervention, that supports that approach. However, in my view, SUFI must be integrated into a broader, more generic campaign for a lifelong learning culture. If SUFI is to have a helpline to promote lifelong learning generically, it makes eminent sense to me that we should not invent another helpline for individual learning accounts. If only from the perspective of efficiency and lack of confusion, it is important that the SUFI helpline becomes central to the initial contact that people make to obtain information. I am concerned about whether central systems can do anything more than provide that information—I am not sure whether they will be able to deliver on participation.
Your submission mentions additionality and makes the point that many people who participate in individual learning accounts might have undertaken that learning anyway. You also mention the Heineken effect. Obviously, we want those people who most require the benefits of upgrading their skills to be those who receive those benefits. However, I am not persuaded that this scheme will achieve that outcome. What would you do to amend the scheme—to tweak it, to change it, to make it better—to ensure that it passes the Heineken test?
I would not move away from universal entitlement. We are too far down the road to go back to where we were originally. The original policy papers were clear that this UK-wide programme was to be targeted at low-skilled, low-waged people in employment, although the papers did not define those terms.
I thank the representatives of Scottish Enterprise Grampian and Scottish Enterprise Fife for joining us and record our appreciation for the candid feedback that they have given us.
I am here to represent the views of the individual learning account themed action group from the Glasgow learning inquiry. I will briefly give the background to why the individual learning account TAG exists and outline its conclusions. The TAG is one of the five themed action groups in the Glasgow learning inquiry. The others cover learning environment and technology; organisation development; literacy and numeracy; and education for work and enterprise. The group that is considering learning environment and technology recently launched a major physical and virtual learning network in the city.
Thank you for that introduction. Point 6 of the document that you provided states:
The TAG's view is that all supported learning should be taken into account. In the schemes and projects that we examined, it did not matter what kind of learning was undertaken; if it was successful for the individual, it led to increased self-confidence and further motivation to learn. We want to see as broad as possible a definition of eligible learning.
Is it your impression that things are too constrained?
Yes. For example, at learning works in Govan, the first round of pilots included leisure and recreational learning. The second round then led to more work-related learning. It is important to ensure that people who are at a distance from learning get started and motivated. If the definition of learning is related too closely to work and qualifications, we may put off a large part of the potential learning population.
That is interesting.
Will you say some about your experience of learning providers' readiness to adapt provision to be able to respond flexibly?
The TAG was concerned that the current infrastructure might not be sufficient to engage with new learners. The timing of the initiative is important. For example, if the initiative is launched before the Scottish university for industry, will the information be available? There are plans to introduce a wide range of learning centres across Scotland, but will people be able to access provision if those centres are not open when individuals try to spend their learning accounts? Will provision be open at suitable times? In the Govan learning works pilot, one of the key issues was that many of the people worked shifts and the learning providers were not open at times that suited them. A range of considerations needs to be taken in to account. If the infrastructure is not ready in the local area, people may not be able to access learning.
You were not here when I quoted the final paragraph of your paper, which reinforces some of the things that you have said. You said that you had a
When the group was planning the activities, there was an assumption that resources would be available to ensure that the key features were available. If those features are not available, and the scheme is enforced and run nationally, it will not be possible to provide the resources.
I picked up on the same point. Point 8 of your paper says that a group was examining specifically
The TAG's view was that collaborative working was needed at a local level and that we needed to create what we described as rings of advocacy—learning advocates who would be knowledgeable about the concept and would sell it. Our view was that there would have to be a major programme of going out and talking to people.
When you say local, does that mean Glasgow-wide or subdivisions within Glasgow?
It depends. Although some agencies work Glasgow-wide, others are locally concentrated. For example, in some social inclusion partnership areas, 200 community groups or organisations might need to know about this issue to ensure that disenchanted learners are reached.
Would those organisations or people in effect work as subsidiaries of the Glasgow-wide inter-agency partnership?
Perhaps the best way of describing them would be as people who have contact with learners. Word of mouth was the most effective way of getting to people.
From your answers to Duncan McNeil's points about the flexibility of learning provision, it seems that the issue is less about engaging in a dialogue with learners than about engaging learners in the process and then securing the access to learning that is appropriate for an individual. Although I accept the need for that, because of the system's complexity, it might be difficult to pursue.
It could be difficult.
Even though it should not be.
The strength of local partnerships will dramatically affect the success of engaging non-participants. If there is no provision on the ground or local network to reach disenchanted learners, there will be no additionality in the programme.
I just want to clarify something. Scottish Enterprise Fife and Scottish Enterprise Grampian have conducted pilot schemes and have therefore had experience of ILA delivery. Am I right in saying that you have not been involved in such pilot schemes?
There have been five types of development accounts in Glasgow similar to the pilots in Grampian and Fife. In particular, the learning works programme in Govan worked predominantly with small companies in getting their employees into learning. However, they were not official pilots.
How many people have been involved in the five schemes?
More than 1,000 people. However, I should repeat that the pilots are not official.
In her response to the consultation, Kathy Maclachlan says:
The TAG was concerned that the Government could interpret that phrase as meaning people who were registered unemployed and that it would not include people who are required to prepare for the job market, but might still be some distance from going into it.
To the third question on the consultation, Kathy Maclachlan gives a unusually and refreshingly candid one-word answer, which is something we do not often get on this committee.
We do not often get one-word questions.
Perhaps in the dim and distant future.
Yes.
Can they not currently obtain help in other ways, through such schemes as jobseekers and so on?
In the other schemes that you mention, the individual does not have a choice. However, ILAs are focused on the individual and relate to individual choice.
Glasgow Chamber of Commerce has stated that one of the dangers with ILAs is that there is a plethora of schemes—jobseekers, new deal and now this programme. Do you share the concern that employers might perceive ILAs as yet another complicated scheme, which will make it even more difficult to understand exactly what is workable and available?
We are concerned about the number of schemes, as are employers. This scheme is a new one; its promotion is targeted directly at individuals and encourages them to take responsibility for their learning. In the first instance, we must make sure that individuals understand the scheme. We want to put in place such an effective briefing system with employer, intermediaries and community groups that they see the scheme as one among the variety of initiatives that are available.
Finally, in your submission you criticise the requirement for £25 to be paid. I admit that I am not clear why such a payment is required, given that it is so small and presumably costly to administer. No doubt there are arguments for it. In "University Challenge", people have a starter for 10. Is your point that if people are required to have a starter for 25 they will end up non-starters?
For disenchanted learners, yes, that money will be a disincentive.
I want to go back to the point that my colleague Allan Wilson raised. You talked about key features on the ground. I presume that part of that is the guidance and support that people need, which you stress throughout your paper. I am concerned about widening access for disadvantaged and disenchanted groups. Duncan McNeil mentioned another barrier, which is flexibility in the delivery of training. What other barriers to learning have you come across in the pilot?
In the learning works in Govan programme, in addition to the points that I have already made, one of the key difficulties was that people would sign up for the learning but would either not turn up on the night or would turn up for the first class and say, "It's not for me." We need to put in place some form of mentoring to make sure that people go to the first learning experience and continue with it; there needs to be some kind of discussion at the end to make sure that they progress, because progression is the key to success. We are talking about not only motivating people to learn, but sustaining that learning participation into the future.
Did you feel that there were practical issues for the participants that stopped them coming back, such as transport or child care?
Yes, there were issues. The pilots were equally balanced between men and women, except in the small and medium-sized enterprise pilot at learning works in Govan, which comprised predominantly men. That may have been because women could not access child care, and there may have been transport difficulties.
You have listened to our questioning this morning and we have concentrated on the idea of involving people who are out of the loop of learning. Have specific lessons come out of your experience that you believe the committee should reflect on carefully before making recommendations to ministers?
From our experience—I think that you also heard this from Scottish Enterprise Fife and Scottish Enterprise Grampian—we have concerns about national marketing without the availability of resources on the ground to make the local inter-agency partnerships work and to provide them with the resources to print simple leaflets and to hold sessions with employers. The balance of the allocation of resources is important.
As there are no other questions, I thank you for your attendance this morning and for your paper. As you will appreciate, we are gathering impressions from different experiences around the country; it has been useful to hear the views from Glasgow.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—
I welcome Doug Wilkie of the Federation of Small Businesses and Paul McKelvie of Scottish Power. We had hoped to have Iain McMillan of the CBI with us but he had a long-standing commitment to meet Mr Sam Galbraith so that took precedence. Peter Duncan of Glasgow Chamber of Commerce is due to join us. I assume that he has been delayed.
It would be useful if first I outline my role with Scottish Power. I am director of Scottish Power Learning, which was set up as a partnership between the company and our main trade unions. It has two main goals. The first is to develop and maintain a learning culture in the organisation through the provision of vocational and, more important, personal development opportunities for staff. That is done through a network of 50 learning centres across the UK.
Are those young people outwith your current work force?
Yes. We have responsibility for both client groups.
How do you pursue that external work?
Through a partnership approach. There are areas where we have expertise and areas where we do not. We understand what skills, attitudes and aptitudes it takes to be an effective member of the work force. We work with agencies outside the organisation to find young people to whom we can offer training through a range of initiatives and using various media. Both areas of Scottish Power Learning's activities involve issues that have a major impact on the focus that ILAs will require to have, if they are to be broadly successful.
So how you go about those issues internally reflects your role as a private sector organisation. Have you decided to deploy some of those skills as a stand-alone business?
No. Although we are company funded, we are not doing this work for income purposes. We have a separate management team and union involvement is important. Our strategy is to recognise that many organisations have expertise in the area of learning, to ask whether we can take what the private sector can contribute to the promotion of learning and, in order to share those resources, to identify innovative ways of working with others.
Mr Wilkie, do you wish to make some introductory remarks on the FSB attitude towards ILAs and your involvement so far?
I must apologise for not being very well prepared. I got back from London only last night, and was given very short notice of this meeting. My comments will be very much off the cuff. I have not had a chance to speak to many members, so please bear that in mind.
The committee may wish to make some comments on that in the fullness of time.
Clearly, if individual learning accounts are to engage everybody, there are a number of issues about the way in which they are marketed. An umbrella method cannot appeal automatically to everybody because it is generic. There are questions to be investigated about the branding of individual learning accounts and the impression that that will give to all types of learner. I am pleased that the pilots have resulted in a move away from bank accounts. That is a positive move to engage those who are not interested in learning at this stage. However, issues also arise from suggestions that two of the main means by which people would become involved with individual learning accounts would be call centres and the internet. The people whom you highlight will not have regular access to those media.
Mr Duncan, you make that point in your response to the Government's consultation document. Will you add some remarks about that?
It is interesting that the three witnesses have a background in education and training. In my day job I run a further education college in Glasgow, Central College of Commerce, but I am also president of Glasgow Chamber of Commerce. Our response was submitted after consultation by the chamber's education and policy group. The plea from its members is similar to the plea about coherence that you have already heard. Business people do not have time to study new initiatives.
Are you suggesting that the individual learning account could develop from its current model into something that brings together many different services and becomes a point of access for the individual?
The key issue is sustainability and that has implications for the pump-priming that is currently taking place. If the scheme is another intervention to encourage education and training, it will not be sustainable in the long term and will not have a major impact. A more radical approach is essential. Businesses want simplicity.
You referred to the review of the enterprise network and the duplication of services. It has become obvious to the committee that there are many overlapping schemes. How do we get one simple scheme to cover the unemployed, workplace learning, full-time study and so on? We hear a lot of criticism of duplication, but very little guidance on how to cover all the different areas.
Members might consider my response as somewhat visionary, because it is easy to say, but not so easy to put in place. If ILAs were available to the whole population and were a mechanism through which individuals could save, the system would be understood more easily. Money could be put into the ILA by the Scottish Executive, if the individual came from a disadvantaged group, or by employers, creating an all-embracing scheme involving elements of credit and debit. Our education and training system could operate within that one framework.
Are you suggesting that we elevate ILAs to being the only mechanism?
Yes. Cubie has reported and the Parliament's response has been published. The outcome of that is that an arm of the Scottish Executive will fund full-time students in higher and further education, but there will be what is known as a graduate endowment tax. That framework could still be administered through an ILA. An ILA can have credit and debit components.
Initially, I was not going to ask about this, but I want to pick up on what Mr Duncan said. Hypothetically, that might be a very exciting prospect, but it implies two things to me. First, it implies huge bureaucracy, which would have to be funded and administered by the Scottish Executive. Secondly, the implication of words such as ILAs, debits and credits is that we are talking about operating a bank account system. We have already ascertained that for many sectors of society, a bank account is not an event of life. Surely that would be an expensive, and not necessarily universally effective, scheme to administer?
I do not agree with your first premise that the system necessarily would be overly expensive, mainly because a lot of activity goes into the administration of the schemes that I have mentioned. We may have a difficulty because some of them, such as skillseekers, are Westminster-driven, but we could wipe out the costs of running those schemes and put the money expended through the enterprise network and the various initiatives into the running of a coherent scheme, as I have suggested. The vision is easy to articulate, but detailed work is necessary to see whether that is viable—it is perception rather than detail.
There is a hope that employers will contribute, but there is a big difference between their contributing to something that will improve the bottom line of their business and their making an altruistic contribution to someone's general improvement. I run a software development company. To put it bluntly, one of my greatest fears is that I will spend money training people who will go somewhere else.
I have three short questions.
You can have three as long as they are very brief.
They are. I was interested in the final operation of the Scottish Enterprise Grampian pilot, which went from a fairly complicated bank account structure to the learner giving 25 quid to the provider, who issued a receipt, which was the trigger for money to be released by the funder and, if he was interested, the employer. Is that the most workable model at local level?
Whatever model is used, the key thing is that it must be simple. I have no strong view on where the £25 contribution should come from. I do not think that it has to come from the individual. If we are moving away from the ethos of saving to learn, which was the ethos behind the initial paper, and which seems to have been lost in the updated versions, the contribution could come from a number of resources, including the employer.
Can I ask a question at this stage? Which providers? Will there be registered providers and will small providers be taken out of the equation? Can anyone just accept the £25 and get on to the scheme?
That is an issue that we will reflect on in our guidance to ministers.
If I could give a succinct answer, we do want to keep it simple, but that is not necessarily at variance with my other views. In case Mr Wilkie misinterpreted what I was saying, it is an individual learning account; it is not about employers paying for others who may not be in their employ.
Mr Kelly, at paragraph 3 of Scottish Power's submission, in response to the question,
There is no doubt that, if learning is to be effective, we need to use it. If we do not use what we learn, we lose it. There needs to be a clear link between what people learn and how they can implement it. That may not always mean that that learning will be used in the workplace for an individual learning account, but it should be made clear that, when learning is approved through an ILA, there is a mechanism to ensure that that learning can be implemented.
In paragraph 8 of the Scottish Power submission, Mr Kelly says that it would be likely to become involved with ILAs and has learning centres for its employees. In his opening remarks, Paul McKelvie said that Scottish Power has 50 learning centres throughout the UK. I know that Scottish Power makes a significant contribution, in many ways, to training in the Scottish economy.
The committee must consider that issue. However, when we get involved in ILAs, that is not what we will do. We need to look at different ways in which ILAs can integrate into our current strategy. ILAs may allow us to help our staff to engage in more personal development activity than is currently available in the budgets that are in my control. For example, through our learning centres, the company currently provides me with £1 million to give our staff learning opportunities. If we are able to engage with our staff, we may be able to offer them more learning opportunities than they currently have, to help them progress their personal development.
I understand that, but the Scottish Parliament information centre research paper 00/08 describes how the ILA idea came about. In relation to the provenance of ILAs, the paper refers to the Moser report, which—although carried out in England and Wales—would, I guess, be relevant here in Scotland. The Moser report states:
The simple answer is yes, but I will expand.
I will have to report back on what I am saying here, but if the idea is to give this to the individuals to develop themselves, I would cut the employers right out of it. We have never been for the grant-aided system. We have always taken the view that letting us pay for what helps to improve our bottom line and giving the money to individuals to develop the skills that they sell to us would keeps things simpler.
Does not this give us the opportunity to encourage a learning culture in companies where it does not exist and where there is a resistance because of concerns of the employer and employees?
I would concur with that. Businesses and other groups need to be innovative and to take off the blinkers with regard to how best to engage with ILAs. Organisations such as Scottish Power have had the resources to enable them to show significant commitment to lifelong learning for their staff. It is good for the business for our staff to engage in foreign language training and so on. That is hard to demonstrate, but our organisation believes it to be the case.
I support the implication in Mr McKelvie's response of motivating people to get involved in a learning culture.
The committee persistently questions some of your colleagues in the further education sector on the flexibility of some of the learning opportunities.
I can show you some good examples.
I am quite sure that you can. We will consider that in due course.
I am happy just to introduce us. I am sure that the issues will come in the questions.
One of the issues that we have been labouring this morning, and which came up in our discussions with business representatives a moment ago, is who will be affected by ILAs. Whose opportunities will be enhanced? We have touched on some interesting ground with regard to whether people who have been excluded from the learning environment, or who have found no motivation to get into the learning environment, will have their circumstances enhanced as a result of ILAs. What are your impressions of that debate and of the Government's proposals?
We have not been directly involved in any of the ILA pilots in Scotland, but we have done some work on evaluating union involvement in ILA pilots in Merseyside and the north-west of England, where the north-west region of the Trades Union Congress has been involved. It found that there are three categories of learners who accessed ILAs. The first group is traditional learners, who would have accessed learning in any case. You might argue that they have simply taken advantage of the resources that have been made available to them. To an extent, you could suggest that they are what might be called dead weight.
I remember being grateful for a previous submission that you made on the flexibility of learning provision.
The nature of provision is important and it is an area that we would like to be more involved in to ensure that flexibility exists where it currently does not exist. As you say, we have commented on that before. The trade union movement has responded to that lack of flexibility by taking other initiatives, including the workbase training initiative that we discussed with you before, because the flexibility to access basic literacy and numeracy skills for workers did not exist and required a separate initiative.
I have a question about how the ILA process will benefit the learner. In particular, I am hazy about how ILAs will demonstrate their achievement, which will be relevant only if it adds value, and whether that value is proven for everyone else, including future employers. I wonder whether Mr Smith has any thoughts on that, as the area seems to be slightly shrouded in mystery at the moment.
Learners want their learning to be recognised, and that can be done through the achievement of a variety of qualifications. That demonstrates to the learner and other beneficiaries of that learning—including employers—that value has been added.
Do you feel that the legislation is not currently clear on that matter?
Yes. It is not clear that learning undertaken through ILAs will always—or should always—be accredited.
In the studies that have been done in the north-west of England, the element of partnership—particularly with employers—has been found to be crucial to ILAs. Setting an agenda before the establishment can access ILAs has helped to provide targets for the equal benefit of the individual union member and the employer.
Is the lifelong learning unit that has been set up with the unions' assistance a means of changing the culture of the workplace from direct provision for smaller numbers of people? What will happen to the trade unions' traditional role of negotiating issues such as time off for training and taking into account some of the problems faced by smaller companies about releasing people for such training? Finally, what opportunities do trade unions have for sponsoring individuals or groups of people?
Perhaps you will remind me if I do not remember all your questions.
We had evidence from the two pilot schemes. In Grampian, an agreement was entered into between the local authority, UNISON and the Workers Educational Association. The issue that arose there related to the £25 introduction to lifelong learning. There seemed to be a choice between that benefit being extended as a benefit of membership of the trade union and it being the product of a traditional collective agreement between the employer and the trade union. Is there any preference within the movement?
I am not aware of discussions that have taken place in individual unions, but I think that the preference would depend on specific circumstances.
I am concerned about people who are living in rural Scotland, perhaps half a day's journey away from the nearest place of learning, whether it be a college or elsewhere. To travel from Knoydart to Fort William involves a boat trip followed by a car journey along one of the worst roads in the UK. I hope that the STUC would be supportive of the ILA scheme, allowing flexibility to ensure that those who want to benefit from the scheme but live far away from the nearest place of learning would be able to receive the cost of their travel, at least, and subsistence and overnight accommodation expenses where possible.
We support the principle of ensuring that access is available to people in rural Scotland. We have not discussed how that might happen and how resources might be made available for that, and I am not sure whether we could support the precise mechanisms that Mr Ewing proposes. Limited resources have been made available for learning through the individual learning accounts arrangements. Given that there are additional resources, there is a debate to be had about how those additional resources are to be used, to ensure that those who need access to learning get it, whether they live in urban Scotland or rural Scotland.
Might you consider the matter in more detail? The basic scheme—£25 plus £150—is limited and is likely to disfranchise many people such as those I mentioned.
I am sure that we are looking into those matters. Other areas, such as the provision of guidance to people interested in taking up an ILA, have cost implications that do not appear to have been recognised, although work has been undertaken elsewhere on adult guidance more generally, which might address some of those issues. A whole range of issues on the introduction of ILAs still needs to be addressed.
Do you accept the point that I made to the previous witnesses, that companies such as Scottish Power which make a valuable contribution to industrial life and training will become the unintended beneficiaries of the scheme, by receiving a large amount of the £23 million that could otherwise be going to the disengaged and disfranchised?
Additionality is the key to that. ILAs must achieve something more than would have otherwise been achieved. There is a danger that some employers who have been investing in learning will take the opportunity of ILAs to substitute state support for that investment. The trade unions have an important role in ensuring that that does not happen and that ILAs benefit individuals, either on their own or acting collectively in a workplace.
I thank Mr Smith and Mr McGrath for their contribution. We are taking evidence for our stage 1 assessment of the Government's proposals over the next few weeks and appreciate your input.
Meeting closed at 11:56.