Enterprise and Culture Committee, 09 Jan 2007

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 9, 2007

Official Report 136KB pdf

---

Further Education and Training Bill

I ask the minister to stay in his seat for item 2, which concerns the legislative consent memorandum on the Further Education and Training Bill, which is UK Parliament legislation. We have a change of officials, so I ask the minister to introduce his team and say a few words about the bill, after which we will go to questions.

I am joined by Laura Barjonas and Gerhard Mors to my right and Margaret Sutor and Kirsten Simonnet-Lefevre to my left. They are all happy to respond to any questions.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of the LCM for the Further Education and Training Bill. You will know that the bill was introduced at Westminster on 20 November 2006 and implements relevant aspects of the commitments that were made in the white paper "Further Education: Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances", which was published in March last year.

Much of the bill is concerned with the structure of the Learning and Skills Council for England, improved interventions in the further education sector, enabling higher education corporations to form or be involved in companies and charitable incorporated organisations and the powers of the National Assembly for Wales in relation to education and training. The bill deals mainly with reserved matters in that the majority of its provisions extend only to England and Wales, but there are three areas in which the Scottish Executive would like it to apply to devolved matters.

First, we wish to be empowered to work with the Learning and Skills Council on the sharing of data on learners and learning access throughout the UK under the managing information across partners programme. MIAP, as it is known for short, is a major project for joining up such information across the entire post-school education sector in the UK, so it will be advantageous to have an enabling power to allow the Scottish ministers, if they so wish, to use software and procedures that have already been developed in other parts of the UK. The result could be significant savings in Scotland and reduced bureaucracy for learners who participate in the Scottish and English systems during their lives.

Secondly, we wish to effect a procedural change to make the operation of career development loans more efficient and effective for learners in Scotland. The career development loans scheme is a UK-wide scheme and is operated by the Learning and Skills Council. Provisions in the Further Education and Training Bill will enable the Scottish ministers to vary the eligibility criteria for career development loan learners and/or providers should we wish to do so to address specific Scottish circumstances.

Finally, we wish the amendments to the Industrial Training Act 1982 that are in the Further Education and Training Bill to apply in Scotland. They ensure that agreement to the amount of levy that industry training boards charge to liable employers is obtained from a wider range of organisations in the relevant industry. The current requirements limit the organisations that are consulted. The range is considered to be too restrictive and no longer representative of industry and employers. Applying the amendments will ensure that a wider range of businesses is consulted on the levy each year and that the range of businesses that are consulted in Scotland is consistent with that in England and Wales.

I hope that the committee supports our view that this legislative consent motion is necessary. It will ensure that Scottish learners and Scottish employers will benefit from, and not be disadvantaged by, proposals that affect learners and employers in the rest of Britain.

Is there an information-sharing agreement between the sector skills council network and any of the bodies that are referred to in the legislative consent memorandum? Would that have implications for Scotland?

Yes. I do not know whether we will discuss Lord Leitch's review at any point. Part of the bill's implementation will be determined by the response to that review and the relationship between the sector skills councils, the Sector Skills Development Agency and the Learning and Skills Council that will flow from it. The short answer to your question is yes on both counts.

As you know, with your assistance, we hope to take evidence from Lord Leitch before the Parliament dissolves in March.

I have written to his office to encourage that process. The letter went out only last week or the week before last, so I have not yet heard back from Sandy Leitch. I have told him that it would be a worthwhile exercise.

I refer to paragraphs 12 and 13 of the memorandum, on career development loans. I was not aware that only the Department for Education and Skills could give instruction on the issue. Can you talk me through what happens at present to Scottish applicants for career development loans and whether the process will be materially different once the bill has been passed?

At the moment, the whole system is administered by the LSC in the same way, irrespective of whether applicants are from Scotland, England or Wales. In practical terms, the bill will not change how things work, but it will give us the ability to vary the registration procedures, for instance, for providers in Scotland only.

I have some concerns about the bill, especially about the fact that it potentially provides for wider-ranging powers than are itemised in the memorandum. Clause 10, on provision of services, provides for ministers to add to the list of persons and bodies with which the council may make arrangements. Given that a consultation is under way on the careers service—currently Careers Scotland—and that in the future we may want to have a Scottish full employment agency that covers employment, skills and careers, is it not premature for us to agree to a legislative consent motion in a fundamental area in which we know Scotland will want to legislate in future and to make very open-ended provision for ministers to transfer to external bodies powers in areas such as skills and employment? The legislative consent motion is far too open-ended. Would you like to respond to the points that I have made?

Without exception, the areas that you have mentioned will be devolved to the Parliament and any future Executive. Undoubtedly, there will be political differences between us on how best to legislate in the future to provide for the eventualities to which you refer. I reassure you that we are seeking only the power to ensure that if, for example, we need in future to regulate better the application of career development loans in Scotland, we will have the power to do so. That would in no way undermine, influence or otherwise change the policy or legislative intent in relation to future provision for skills training, workforce development or other areas of devolved policy.

This is a belt-and-braces approach: the intention is for us to have the powers, should we wish to exercise them, in devolved areas that will prospectively be affected by the passage of the bill. For example, it will give us the power to consult a wider range of businesses that are affected by industry training board levies. I hope that I have addressed your concerns.

The bill seems a bit premature, as it deals with a fundamental area in which we know we want to see change in Scotland. Why are we pressing ahead with a legislative consent motion when the provisions could be incorporated into primary legislation in Scotland? The issue of Careers Scotland is important, as it may be appropriate for us to take a different perspective on career development loans. It would be strange to give Westminster permission to legislate in an area in which we are looking to legislate.

I take your point. The area of pressing concern for us, given the difference in cycles between the two legislatures, is MIAP. We want to ensure that Scotland benefits from the software developments that are taking place down south and will assist the exchange of information between Administrations. That is why we want the provisions to be adopted.

I am sorry to pursue this point, but it seems to be a fundamental aspect of government that so much is governed by information technology systems. I have seen the same thing in another committee, in relation to vulnerable groups. IT systems can drive policy. I can see the cost benefits of a shared system, but my concern is that it could prejudge future policies.

Will you seek an amendment to ensure that the relevant instruments have to be subject to the affirmative procedure? As I said, clause 10 is broad and allows ministers to make changes to the list of those who can have access to information and services without having to come back to Parliament. That is a blank cheque. Once we give permission, we let it go—but it may have an impact on future policy, particularly if careers advice is going to depend on information systems.

No. We are trying to ensure that we have the best of both worlds. We have legislative powers for future careers, counselling and advice services, to ensure that they are tailor-made for the Scottish situation. That is a matter entirely within the province of the Parliament and any future Executive. It is not a case of IT systems or collaborations driving policy; it is the other way about. Policy would be driven by the Executive and the Parliament, and IT systems would require to be compatible with the policy development—hence the reference in the bill to particular developments.

We have established a Scottish development group to look at developments from a Scottish perspective and to ensure that they are driven in a way that is compatible with and complementary to our own intent. At the end of the day, it is entirely within our province whether we take up or set aside any provisions on sharing information that are agreed south of the border, in Wales or in any other part of the United Kingdom, but I am sure that the committee agrees that it will benefit learners, particularly those who spend time in different systems, if we have that provision, should we wish to use it.

I will let others come in.

I want to continue on career development loans. I would be grateful if you could address my anxieties.

I recognise that the decision that we are being asked to take today refers only to enabling the Scottish ministers to vary the eligibility criteria in the future, but what does that signify about your views on how the scheme could be developed? Will you comment in particular on any lessons that might have been learned from the experience of individual learning accounts? I know that that is not an exact parallel, but as I was involved in the Audit Committee inquiry into it, I am struck that there are parallel issues that should be considered.

Essentially, ILAs started out as a UK-wide scheme with Scottish variations, which led to some confusion and lack of clarity about rules, lines of accountability and so on, rather than to the best of both worlds that you described. When the Executive came to review the situation, the decision was made to jump completely to a Scottish scheme. Having been immersed in the issue—although I admit that some of my memories are hazy—I felt while reading the legislative consent memorandum and listening to you that some of the underlying thinking is going in a different direction from the conclusions that were reached previously. Those anxieties may be unfounded. If they are, I am sure you will put me right.

No, that is a valid point. I am not sure that the analogy with the individual learning accounts is necessarily the best, but you are right that our response was in effect to proceed with a Scotland-wide system of individual learning accounts. That is now up and running, and I would argue that it is an improvement on the previous UK-wide model.

The difficulties were experienced outside Scotland rather than within Scotland. Only about 1,000 learners are involved each year. There are slightly different approaches north and south of the border in relation to provision for postgraduate and undergraduate learners. We seek the power to vary the UK-wide scheme to take account of such differences. The Parliament would wish the Scottish ministers to have the power to ensure that the UK scheme for career development loans operates in the interests of Scottish learners.

One of the outcomes of approving the legislative consent motion will be a clearer line of accountability for the Scottish ministers in respect of Scottish learners. If the Scottish ministers wish to do something specific to protect learners or providers, they will have the power to do so more directly by instructing the Learning and Skills Council.

They will have the power to change the rules rather than assume operational responsibility?

Operational responsibility will sit with the Learning and Skills Council, on instruction from the three devolved Administrations that participate in CDLs—if the LCM is approved.

As I understand it, the bill tidies up the legislative basis on which the scheme operates.

The minister said that there are about 1,100 applicants a year. That seems fairly low. Does he hope that the new scheme will increase the number?

That is a good point. We might wish to market the scheme better to Scottish students. The scheme is paid for by the UK taxpayer, so there would be no financial consequences for us in doing so. That is a good example of the benefit that could accrue from the provision. We could market the scheme better and more Scottish learners could take advantage of a scheme that is paid for by the UK taxpayer.

The general point of the bill is to restructure the Learning and Skills Council in England. What do you envisage will be the relationship between the council and the skills committee of the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council? Is there a danger that the operation of the funding council will be undermined if the Learning and Skills Council wants to exercise wider powers on skills and employability?

No. What we propose will give the Scottish ministers greater influence over the Learning and Skills Council's decisions on the aspects of devolved policy over which it has influence. I do not think that there is cause for concern there. The proposal will not affect the relationship between the skills committee of the funding council and the Executive or any interaction between the funding council and the Learning and Skills Council in England. I do not dispute that those important issues will arise in the Leitch review, but Leitch was clear that devolved areas of workforce development, skills training and the like should be determined here in Scotland and should not be influenced or altered by developments south of the border in relation to the Learning and Skills Council or restructuring of the regime there. I suppose that the various elements come together in the sector skills councils, the Sector Skills Development Agency and the creation of the new commission. I think that that will greatly benefit future skills training here and will give the Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament greater influence over future skills development and training in Scotland.

I would like to return to career development loans. It being the new year, my mind is perhaps turning slowly through this.

Christine May pointed to the relatively small number of people who access career development loans, and I remember from my former professional life that the loans scheme has had quite a limited impact. I take your point, in response to Christine May's question, that there is a pot of funding from the UK Government that we want to make use of, but I presume, especially if the issue is up for discussion at the moment, that there are other ways—at least in theory—in which we could do that.

I presume that there could be some transfer of resources and that a completely different scheme could be developed here in Scotland. I would be interested in your comments on that. Under the scenario that you propose, were you to vary the eligibility criteria in such a way that significantly more people could benefit, there would be an associated cost. What would be the implications for financing that?

The cost—if any—would fall on the UK taxpayer rather than on the Executive. Such a measure would have no economic disbenefit for us. We cannot look at career development loans in isolation from the wider provision of student support. That is a devolved matter, as you know, and career development loans are a complementary part of that process. All we are seeking to do is ensure that we have the powers to regulate the scheme and its operation in Scotland to the benefit of Scottish learners. The financial implications of that are for others to consider.

That is an intriguing reply. I seek an assurance that any decision that is made under this piece of UK legislation will not preclude further change in the future, if a future Executive considers a more radical change to the overall scheme.

No. Part of the advantage of addressing the matter through UK legislation is the fact that the legislation will underpin the provision of career development loans to Scottish learners, which could otherwise be contested in different circumstances.

That is even more intriguing.

Such as what? In what circumstances?

In my time in the department, it has been a relatively unique provision. The extension of UK schemes into areas that are principally devolved so that they apply across devolved boundaries is of benefit to Scottish learners. As we have heard, around 1,000 Scottish students currently benefit from the scheme. I am sure that you are the last person to want to disadvantage those students.

On that rather provocative note, I ask committee members whether they are minded to recommend approval of the legislative consent memorandum.

I am minded not to do so. There are too many uncertainties, and we will have the opportunity to produce consolidated Scottish legislation in the area in the future.

Okay. The committee has three choices: to make no recommendation; to recommend approval of the memorandum; or to recommend that Parliament does not approve the memorandum. Fiona, are you saying that we should not take a position or that we should recommend that Parliament does not approve the memorandum?

I think that we should recommend that Parliament does not approve the memorandum.

Is anyone otherwise minded?

I think that we should approve the memorandum.

We will go to a vote. The question is, that the committee recommends that legislative consent on the Further Education and Training Bill be granted by the Parliament.

For

Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Mr Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)

Against

Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)

I do not think that there are any abstentions.

No, I do not think that there are any. We can tell that Stephen Imrie is up on his maths.

The result of the division is: For 7, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

I thank the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and his team—or rather teams—of officials. I also thank committee members. I remind you that we will meet at 2 o'clock on Tuesday next week, when the main subject will be aging—a subject in which most members no doubt have a specific interest.

Meeting closed at 15:45.