Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 8, 2001

Official Report 180KB pdf

---

Lifelong Learning

Item 6 is our lifelong learning inquiry, on which a paper has been circulated. We have agreed the general remit for the inquiry, but we need to be a bit more specific about how it is to be fleshed out. We must be clear about what questions the inquiry should pose and answer. We are seeking members' feedback on that and on the specification for an adviser.

Based on the experience of the committee's first major inquiry into economic development, I suggest that we build in the flexibility to have more than one adviser, if required, as the range of subjects that we will cover and the nature of the institutional structure of lifelong learning is such that we would be extremely lucky to find one person who can cover everything. I am not saying that such a person does not exist, but we should allow ourselves the flexibility to have another adviser. Simon Watkins tells me that we had up to four advisers at various stages in the inquiry into economic development. Given the scope of this inquiry and the fact that we do not want it to be too long, more than one adviser may be required.

I agree. We have allowed only 10 days for the adviser. If there were only one adviser, that would not be enough time. Therefore, we must think about consulting three or four advisers, each for that time scale. We will have the adviser on the SHEFC inquiry for 14 days, and we will need more than one adviser in this inquiry.

Under the heading,

"The Committee will wish to investigate",

I would like us to focus on the issue of accessibility to institutions and the widening access and social inclusion agenda, which we considered at our previous meeting. We should also focus on the issue of gender equality. There should be bullet points in the paper for accessibility, equality, widening access and social inclusion, as those are important aspects of our remit.

I am not suggesting that we should undertake a series of visits, but I think that we should also include international comparisons. We know that there are comparable countries that it would be easy to get information about through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which has experts in that field who are based in Paris. A key part of the inquiry is about improving Scotland's competitiveness in the international market. If we do not look at what other people are doing, we clearly do not know how to benchmark that, so I suggest that we build in a reference to some international comparators and benchmarking as part of the research.

I want to make two small points. The statistic that has haunted me in the brief time that I have been on the committee is the one that Electronic Scotland gave us when we were in Linlithgow: we are not producing enough graduates in particular engineering disciplines to satisfy the needs of that growing sector. Which bullet point does that come under? Do we need another mechanism to achieve that?

Marilyn Livingstone mentioned social inclusion, but there is also geographical inclusion. For example, there are now strong demands from the south of Scotland to consider how learning institutions can best meet the requirements of communities in that area. We need to be mindful of that need as we conduct our study. We are not talking about only Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen.

I support what Marilyn Livingstone said, and I also agree with Tavish Scott's point about geographical inclusion. There are different kinds of inclusion.

My main point is the one that you made, convener, and concerns the extent to which we have a lifelong learning strategy and delivery mechanisms that meet our economic objectives. That needs to be clearly specified, as it relates directly to what Tavish Scott is saying. Unfortunately, the whole problem with technology and engineering does not reside only in Electronic Scotland. The situation is equally bad, if not worse, in the oil and gas sector.

Or in the construction industry. Many sectors face similar problems.

I would like clear objectives.

I am glad that Elaine Thomson has mentioned that, because that seems to me to be the anchor around which the whole inquiry pivots—if it is possible to pivot on an anchor.

I am sure it is, Annabel.

My concern would be whether the specification prevents us from looking at one or two difficult short-term areas that need to be considered as part of the lifelong learning inquiry. I am thinking particularly about the funding arrangements that are associated with further education, and the extent to which deliverables can be pursued through that. There are issues that will hit us in the face in the course of the inquiry, and we need to ensure that we have something in our specification to take account of that.

You make a good point. I suggest that, under the fourth bullet point, we should refer not only to "funding mechanisms" but to funding levels and the distribution of funding. We are concerned with the whole architecture of the funding and not just with the mechanisms.

We are also concerned with how that relates to the points that Marilyn Livingstone raised, and perhaps also to the Government's broader social justice agenda. We have been given a framework that the Government says is the core of what it is trying to do. We need to ask whether the deliverables that are operating are geared towards that set of objectives and how well they are working from that point of view.

We should not forget the role of community education, as it clearly has a major role in lifelong learning, depending on what geographical area we are talking about.

If there is any community education left.

I would like to amplify Des McNulty's point, which I think is valid. The other aspect that we have to consider is what investment companies and organisations are making in training and lifelong learning.

Until recently, companies were not allowed to get support for in-house training from the enterprise network, as a result of Treasury rules. Yet the whole thrust of the business development strategy is to make businesses more competitive, and we cannot do that unless we are prepared to invest. Perhaps we should specify that as an area that we want to be sure about. Clearly, part of the lifelong learning drive is to support companies to upgrade the management and vocational skills of their people.

I shall ask Simon Watkins and his clerking team to redraft the remit of the lifelong learning inquiry in the light of the comments that have been made. I think that there is broad agreement on what we are trying to achieve, but I shall ask him to circulate the remit for any additional comment before we finalise it. It is the type of thing that members may want to give a bit more thought to. We want to finalise it fairly soon, so that we can then agree the methodology, the time scale and the list of people whom we want to interview. That will give members a further opportunity to input suggestions. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I look forward to seeing members at 9 o'clock next Tuesday morning, when the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and Gaelic will be here.

Meeting closed at 16:39.