Official Report 188KB pdf
The second item on our agenda is consideration of a legislative consent memorandum relating to the United Kingdom Government's Education and Skills Bill. We will take evidence on the LCM from the Scottish Government. I welcome to the committee Maureen Watt, Minister for Schools and Skills; Rachel Sunderland, team leader, qualifications, assessments and skills, Scottish Government schools directorate; David McPhee, statistician, enterprise, energy and lifelong learning analytical services; and Neel Mojee, principal legal officer, Scottish Government legal directorate.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of the legislative consent motion on the Education and Skills Bill.
Why has the Scottish Government decided not to legislate to confer the powers on reserved bodies? The Scottish Government must have considered allowing the Scottish Parliament to discuss and debate the issue. Why has it decided not to do so?
That would mean that the Scottish Government would have to draft a bill and put it to the Scottish Parliament. That bill would involve reserved departments such as HMRC and the DWP. We thought that the legislative consent motion was a more direct and less complicated route than drafting a bill for the Scottish Parliament.
Why would it be complicated to draft such a bill?
The actual drafting of the bill would not be complicated, but it would be more complicated than using a legislative consent motion and it would involve us in negotiations with HMRC and the DWP. They are reserved bodies, so there would not be a purely Scottish involvement; Westminster bodies would have to be involved.
The decision to allow the Scottish ministers to access data that are held by the DWP and HMRC is one issue but, vice versa, is not allowing those bodies to access Scottish data purely within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament?
Can you say that again?
Giving permission to the DWP and HMRC to access educational data in Scotland is purely within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
Yes.
So the reason for using a Sewel motion is simply that it is more convenient; it is not a result of consideration of whether the Scottish Parliament should have the right to debate the issues and vote on whether those bodies should have access to our young people's educational data.
We are seeking to transfer data back from HMRC or the DWP to our Scottish analytical services so that they can use that information to allow us, for example, to improve our tracking of which further education courses provide young people with better employment prospects and wage rates.
It is on the record that the SNP for many years has considered the use of the Sewel motion mechanism to be an abuse of Parliament—but there are no ironies lost on the minister.
The member is talking about the general provisions of the bill, which the legislative consent motion does not concern. However, to be helpful to Mr Purvis, I tell him that, as I understand it, children who are resident in England but in school in Scotland will be subject to the main provisions of the bill because their residency is in England.
So young people who live in Berwick, for example, but go to school in Scotland will be required to carry on in education or training after the age of 16?
That is my understanding, yes.
What representations has the Scottish Government made to the UK Government in that area?
Perhaps Rachel Sunderland can talk about that, because she has been involved in discussions on the bill.
We have had a number of discussions at official level, with colleagues who developed the policy behind the bill, about some of the cross-border issues to which the member refers, such as what will happen to a young person who is resident in England but is employed or goes to school in Scotland, and vice versa. Residency is the issue. Our key focus was on young people who are resident in Scotland and ensuring that there were no implications for them, or for schools, businesses and learning providers in Scotland. The bill places duties on young people, businesses, parents and local authorities. In each of those areas, a residency requirement is set, so the provisions concern businesses and local authorities in England, and parents and young people who are resident in England. We have had discussions about that. I hope that that is helpful.
There have been discussions, but have no formal representations been made with regard to children whose parents will be resident in England but who are in school in Scotland?
Apart from the area to which the LCM relates, the main provisions of the bill—as Rachel Sunderland said—entirely concern people who are resident in England or businesses that are based in England, and to some extent, Wales. The main provisions of the bill will have no effect on Scotland.
Some children with parents who are resident in England are looked-after children in Scotland. What representations has the Scottish Government made to the UK Government with regard to looked-after children who are resident in Scotland but whose parents are resident in England being educated and schooled in Scotland?
Before the minister or the official answers the question, I remind Mr Purvis that the scope of the questioning today covers the LCM and its competency. Any representations that should be made to the Westminster Government about the proposal—not the LCM, but the bill—should be a matter for the elected representatives of the affected individuals, not elected representatives here in Scotland. The member needs to bear that in mind when he frames his questions.
There is a residency requirement. If a young person is resident in Scotland, they will not be caught by the bill, even if their parents are resident in England.
A looked-after child in Scotland would not be classified as being resident in Scotland. They would be under the age at which it would be determined that they resided in Scotland.
If the bill is passed, its provisions will not come into effect until 2013 for 17-year-olds and 2015 for 18-year-olds. There will be long delays to allow the Government time to put in place the extra support that will be required to deliver on its commitments. I am sure that all the details relating to specific groups of young people will be considered during that period.
Before members ask any more questions, I remind them that the committee has responsibility for considering four main issues: the merits of the policy; the justification for using an LCM; whether we want to make any comments on the terms of the draft motion; and the recommendation to be placed before the Parliament, which will consider that recommendation. Members should consider those points in framing their questions.
I want to say something as an adjunct to the debate on the previous agenda item. We take statistics from the Higher Education Statistics Agency, which is a UK-wide body, and I am sure that what is being proposed is normal and is in line with the good relations between the Scottish Government and the Westminster Government. Indeed, I am sure that, in the future, we will take statistics from further afield in Europe and will reflect on the trends that they show. Will the trends and general policy advice that emerge from such a method of legislating guide the Government's policy or will individual cases be dealt with?
The proposal is absolutely not about individual cases. Data will be shared for research purposes only; the proposal is not about individuals' details or their data. If we pass the legislative consent motion, we will be able to get information from the DWP and the HMRC on salaries, for example, which we can use to find out about the types of courses that lead to better destinations, better earning capacities and better employment prospects. The information will mostly relate to the further education sector, because there are better data relating to the higher education sector from other sources, as you rightly mention.
So there would be state-of-the-art provision that would allow us to gather the best possible information for our current knowledge.
Yes. We are talking about data that we did not have access to before.
We have evidence on further education outcomes, but not in anywhere near the detail that we are talking about; rather, it is survey information, which means that we cannot delve into it. Matching information and obtaining anonymised data for research purposes will allow us to consider specific further education qualifications and courses, which will allow us to target provision much more effectively.
That type of information will be of great benefit to our skills strategy, which attempts to give young people more choices and chances.
Perhaps I could offer a few supportive and constructive comments before asking a question or two about the bill.
My neighbour, John Sewel, would be very proud of me, I am sure.
I am delighted that the minister does not share the rather blinkered view that some of her colleagues have demonstrated in the past.
We are still consulting on how we implement the skills strategy. At the moment, nothing is ruled out and nothing is ruled in. However, I cannot say that we are necessarily looking to what is happening in England as a way forward. We will consult businesses, colleges and young people in Scotland about how to take the skills strategy forward rather than look over our shoulder to see what is happening in England. When we were discussing the skills strategy, we made it perfectly clear that, although England was following the recommendations of the Leitch review, we wanted to ensure that our skills strategy was the way forward in Scotland.
I am reassured by your remarks, I think. Is the possibility of providing free training to adults up to NVQ level 2—or even level 3—still under consideration? I am not sure whether that is part of this LCM.
I am sure that it is not part of the LCM, so it is entirely up to the minister whether she wants to respond on that issue.
At this stage, we should wait and see what the recommendations are following the consultation on the skills strategy.
I am glad to see that committee members are taking every opportunity to get in a few extra questions on unrelated matters.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
As I indicated, the committee is required to report to the Parliament on the LCM. The report should include our views on the merits of the policy and the justification of using the LCM, any comment on the terms of the draft motion and a recommendation on whether to give consent to the proposal.
I support the LCM as proposed. Although we have had a run round some of the issues, the LCM would provide a straightforward way of getting better information, which would be very helpful.
I add my support. Anything that better informs us about our young people, such as what employment they end up in and their journey from formal education into the world of work, is extremely important. I share some of the sentiments that were mentioned earlier that some of the evidence that we had about an earlier bill was not desperately convincing. The more evidence we have, the better able we are to make a decent decision about what is relevant and what could be helpful in the formulation of Government policy.
I, too, support the LCM. It is a good example of the LCM procedure and a proportionate response that confers more powers on Scottish ministers. I am glad that it has unanimous support in the committee.
I am happy to support the legislative consent motion. The information that can be provided will be useful in developing courses for the future. I am pleased that the SNP has been converted to the merits of LCMs and recognises the advantages of using the procedure. However, I share my colleague Ken Macintosh's view that the SNP could have gone further because we all could have supported the extension of compulsory education to 18-year-olds; perhaps the minister will come back to us on that point. I look forward to that. At this stage, however, I support the motion.
Members have raised a number of issues. It is clear that there is universal support for the LCM, which we should recommend in our report to the Parliament.
Members indicated agreement.