Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, 06 Dec 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 6, 2000

Official Report 224KB pdf

---

Research Support

Simon Watkins will introduce item 4 on research support.

Members will recall that, at the meeting before last, we discussed a major piece of external research to support the committee's inquiry into lifelong learning. The conveners group has some views on that. Members also expressed an interest in background research to support the away day that the committee is proposing to hold early next year. That work will be undertaken internally by the Scottish Parliament information centre's researchers. Simon Wakefield, who has done much of the committee's research work to date, joins us now.

The paper sets out some suggestions for initial background research. Simon Wakefield has suggested that SPICe can probably undertake five pieces of work between now and the away day. He has suggested an initial list, based on the comments that members have made during meetings in the past few months.

Yesterday, the conveners group approved the budget for external research that the committee agreed to in principle. That will inform our lifelong learning inquiry.

We want to try to provide research that is as effective as possible. The more that we can plan ahead, using feedback from the committee, the better the work will be.

I do not want to give Simon Wakefield extra work, but in the research on the new deal in Scotland, could we also consider skillseekers and training for work? Those initiatives are linked. We should consider the overall picture in vocational training, for example what is supported by the Employment Service and the enterprise companies.

Given our earlier discussions, perhaps Simon Wakefield could do some preliminary research on the digital infrastructure. We do not have much time. Our work load might mean that we will push to gather together our report on the new economy, and infrastructure is likely to be the predominant issue. Some general information might help us to focus our minds on the specific questions that we should ask at the away day.

That is a good point. At that time, we will still be drafting our final report on the new economy. Infrastructure also affects competitiveness and productivity, so examination of that will be consistent with our longer-term work programme.

Long-term Scottish population trends are interesting and we need to investigate them, but not, perhaps, as a priority.

Do not we need to take evidence on that subject?

The discussion is about a long-term work programme, which we have yet to decide on. We will decide formally on that after the away day. The paper that is before us is based on members' ideas, including George Lyon's idea on competitiveness, and my idea. I think that population trends are a big issue, but that is a matter for another day.

The paper is intended to inform the committee in preparation for the away day. Once we see some of the research, different angles will emerge, which will inform us. We have agreed that the lifelong learning inquiry will be mixed, but it will be important to plan the remit of that inquiry so that it is manageable work that will add value to the debate. The danger with lifelong learning—as with any subject—is that we make the inquiry so wide that we end up with a mishmash. It must be manageable.

I mentioned the skillseekers and training for work programmes because they are relevant to the inquiry. It would be good to get the briefing on them, given the amount of money that is spent on them.

In addition to that briefing, the Audit Committee has produced a report on skillseekers.

The first suggested topic for a SPICe briefing, as shown on page 1 of the paper, is lifelong learning. Will not that form separate and external research, which will be done for us through the mapping of the lifelong learning environment? I thought that that was agreed.

The idea behind the external research was to send out a questionnaire to the economic forums once they start to get established. As for the time scale, the idea is to get those results back in the middle of next year. We will need to allow time for the forums to collate the information and for them to co-ordinate things. I suggest that, in addition to the longer-term external research, we should provide a briefing on lifelong learning for the away day.

That would help in deciding on the remit of the inquiry.

Things are becoming clearer after our discussion today. With the new deal in Scotland, for example, could the research be broadened slightly to deal with some of the issues that surround labour market trends and skill shortages? A lot of the lifelong learning research is intended to map the training and education that we provide against what is required.

The research should perhaps be on wider labour market issues, rather than lifelong learning.

I agree. I asked for that information partly because of the need to find out whether the vast sums of money that we spend in this area match what business wants.

Do members therefore agree that we should widen the scope of the research briefing on the new deal so that it covers wider labour-market issues? We need to know the key issues that face the labour market in Scotland.

The situation with the digital infrastructure is quite urgent, given the state of our report. It is a separate matter and it needs to be covered in our report; it is not long-term work. I suggest that Simon Wakefield could work on that and produce something for us, perhaps with Ian Ritchie. If possible, we could do with that in January, rather than in February.

Okay.

Are there any other comments on the paper? Please note the date for the away day, which is—

Is it during the recess?

Yes—but it is not a recess; they are non-chamber days.

Is that the right week? I have a different date in my diary. Maybe it is just me.

The away day is during the week between 12 February and 19 February.

When is our away day?

The Tuesday of that week.

That is not during the February recess, is it?

Yes it is.

But what is the actual date?

I suggest that it is not a good date.

The last time we discussed this, members suggested that the recess was the best time.

I offer my apologies, then.

Is the proposal agreeable to members?

Members indicated agreement.