Enterprise and Culture Committee, 18 Nov 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 18, 2003

Official Report 177KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 Amendment Order 2003 (SSI 2003/487)

Item 2 is consideration of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 Amendment Order 2003, which is a negative instrument. We have to help us—if required—in our consideration Colin Baird and Alastair Clyde, who represent the Scottish Executive. The order is fairly straightforward, although it has caused some interest because of matters that are tangential to its content. Members may wish to say something about that.

I have received a letter from the Association of Scottish Colleges, which raised, among other points, the fact that the

"Statutory Instrument will remove any remaining legal doubt as to the powers of colleges to offer this kind of provision in partnership with the education authorities and their schools."

Do members wish to comment on the order?

I received some information from the church and nation committee of the Church of Scotland but neglected to bring it with me today, so I apologise to the committee. Would you accept it after the meeting, convener? The church and nation committee raised a number of concerns, particularly about social inclusion and other access issues.

I understand from the First Minister's comments that he is seeking an expansion in the number of young people who go to school as well as to college, the effect of which would be to cap the amount of money that colleges have. There seems to be an inconsistency. If colleges are going to do more, having a cap could mean that some of their existing students might be excluded as a consequence. It is not clear whether the First Minister, or ministers in general, aim to transfer some resource from the schools sector to the further education sector to accommodate additional costs. The Executive note says that the order is a technical measure, and that it is okay to do what it does. However, the order would also put a cap on colleges' money. In the light of the comments that members of the Executive have made, it is not clear to me whether the delivery of some coursework through colleges will be possible without that being at the expense of something else, given what is stated in the order.

The only courses of action open to us are to consider lodging a motion to annul the order or to say that we have no observations to make on it. As I do not think that there is any desire on the part of the committee to move to annul the order, it might be appropriate for us to write to the minister to seek further clarification of the point that Brian Adam made. Are there any points that members feel that the officials who are kindly with us today would be able to help us with?

If they can help us, that would be fine. I am content to go along with your suggestion.

As the officials have come to the meeting, they should comment if they have anything to say in response to Mr Adam's remarks.

Thank you—it will justify the train fare if nothing else.

The issues are related, but separate. The first is that we consider the order to be a technical measure, which is intended to dispel the doubt that perhaps exists about colleges' existing powers. The purpose of the order is to clarify that colleges' existing work ought to continue. Ministers recognise that any order could send signals to the sector. The cap to which the member refers is a specific cap on Scottish Further Education Funding Council enrolments of persons of school age. Therefore, the moneys that will go to further education colleges via the route outlined in "Determined to Succeed: A review of enterprise in education" or via European social funds will not be covered by the cap, nor will the cap apply to persons over school age, which means pupils aged 16 and 17.

As far as the issues about the wider purpose of increased collaboration between the school and college sectors and the implementation of the partnership agreement commitment to vocational skills are concerned, the Executive has announced and launched a wide-ranging review of school-college collaboration. The review was launched at a conference last month and the review group is looking to issue a consultation paper in the coming months to deal with the wider issues of school-college collaboration, which go beyond the technical issue that is addressed in the order.

Is it fair to say that if the review to which you refer arrives at the conclusion that greater collaboration is a good idea, there would have to be further statutory instruments, or perhaps primary legislation, to address that? Can you give us guidance on that point?

Ministers have said publicly that one of the first things that the review will do is examine some of the issues raised in the order—therefore, that will be covered by the review. It is too early to say whether the review will lead to further legislative or administrative change. One of the fundamental issues that the review will consider is funding responsibilities and funding methodologies for this particular group of students.

What is the time scale for the review to produce recommendations that ministers can consider?

We hope to issue a consultation paper in December or January. The lifelong learning strategy promised an implementation plan. We are discussing with ministers whether the consultation paper, which will be quite discursive in nature, and the eventual implementation plan are perhaps too far apart and whether there may need to be an intervening period of consultation on some of the detail. That said, the current aim is to formulate a strategy and implementation plan by April 2005 with a view to implementation in the academic year 2005-06.

With that, I ask whether members are content simply to make no observation on the order. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank the officials for their attendance.