Official Report 188KB pdf
Individual Learning Account (Scotland) Regulations 2008 (SSI 2008/1)
Agenda item 3 is consideration of a Scottish statutory instrument under the negative procedure. Members have a cover note and a copy of the draft SSI in their papers. No motion to annul has been lodged. The Subordinate Legislation Committee determined that it did not need to draw the Parliament's attention to the instrument. Do members have any comments?
I note from the information that is before us that the instrument does not need to be approved until 18 February. Would the committee be interested in seeking more information on the instrument? Although at this stage I do not think that we will want to recommend that it not be approved, there are a number of questions that we could pursue. For example, why has the Scottish Government decided that a grant of £500 should be made available to part-time students, especially on a day when we have just completed consideration of the bill that will provide for the removal of a burden of more than £2,000 from some of our full-time students? Are we being ambitious enough in the support that we are giving to part-time students? Are we treating them with an equality that emphasises the worth of education, rather than the educational route that people choose? Is the individual learning account the right and best vehicle for introducing such support?
In the light of Mary Mulligan's comments, would the committee like to take evidence on the instrument? There is scope for us to meet next week for a short evidence-taking session on the instrument. Do other members think that that would be helpful and enlightening?
I think that it would be. Like Mary Mulligan, I welcome the fact that additional funding for part-time learners in Scotland has been found. This is an important subject. Committee colleagues will have been impressed, as I was, by the evidence that Peter Syme from the Open University gave to us on the subject recently. I recall a lengthy inquiry into part-time learning by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee in a previous session. If the instrument is the outcome of the Government's deliberations on part-time education and is the solution that it is offering, there is merit in our discussing the policy. We need to establish how the Government came to its conclusion and what its long-term objectives are. As Mary Mulligan pointed out, there is still huge inequity in how we treat part-time students as opposed to full-time students.
There is no reason why the committee cannot meet next week if it wants to do so. It might be easier to have a short meeting next week, rather than discuss the issue on 6 February, when we will meet for an informal session with Executive officials to discuss the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007. The minister offered that meeting some time ago because she is aware that the issues are complex, so the meeting might be lengthy.
I appreciate that, but my preference is for a clear Wednesday morning, to be followed by a busy one. I would prefer it if there were no committee meeting next week and informal and formal meetings on 6 February, even though our agenda that day would be full. As the convener knows, having a clear morning makes quite a difference, given that we have to travel from our constituencies. I would rather come for a full morning. I think that there will be enough time on 6 February to have an informal discussion on vulnerable groups, which will last for about an hour and a half, and a chance to explore issues with the minister in what need not be a long discussion. We would need to ascertain whether the minister would be available.
Officials, rather than ministers, normally attend such meetings.
I agree that we need to find out as much as we can about the approach to getting more people into education, but I am conscious that the committee has a wide remit. The alacrity with which some members want to pursue issues to do with education is not matched by keenness to strike a balance and consider our other areas of responsibility. My interests have been met with comments like, "We'll do culture in our last week", and we do not seem to be striking a balance in our consideration of the country as a whole.
We should discuss part-time education further. The issue is extremely important—and increasingly so. It is vital that we get behind the Government's thinking, which I support in this context, and compare our approach in Scotland with approaches in other nations, so that we get a clear idea of how what we do benefits education and the economy. Therefore, I support the suggestion that we spend a little more time on the matter. It is important that we give it due consideration.
I agree with Rob Gibson's concerns that the committee has not done enough on culture. Perhaps he wants to fill next week's vacant slot with something on that—I am sorry; that was not a serious suggestion. I was not on the committee when the work programme was discussed at the beginning of the session, but the convener has said that committee members can suggest ideas for what the committee could usefully investigate and I would be happy to consider our remit on cultural issues more thoroughly. However, I hope that that will not overshadow the suggestion that support for part-time students is important and that the committee might want to consider it.
On whether officials appear or the minister appears, I am keen that we discuss the policy background and we cannot really quiz officials about that. That would be unfair, as they would not be in a position to answer. Officials can explain some of the thinking behind the regulations, but they cannot go into explanations of policy. If the regulations are the conclusion of a process of policy development, it would be beneficial—for the Government as well as for us—to have the minister here.
Could we get some written evidence from the ministers on the policy background and take oral evidence from the Government officials? Would that be acceptable to the committee?
I will respond to those points. The committee as a whole agreed its work programme. We probably would not have been taking evidence on support for part-time students if the Government had not laid legislation before us. It has done that, so the discussion becomes about whether we want to take additional evidence. If the Government had laid cultural statutory instruments before us, we may well have wanted to take additional evidence on those.
We need to bear in mind that our work programme will be shaped in a number of ways: by us as committee members; by civic Scotland, which will make representations to us about the issues that the committee should consider; and by the Government, which will bring before us legislative proposals in the form of primary or secondary legislation. We need to reflect on that. I hope that, when the Government publishes its culture bill, which will come to the committee, we will spend a little more time on cultural matters. Evidence-taking sessions on the creative industries are planned for before the summer recess.
Members indicated agreement.
It is my understanding that the only measure that the committee can take with a negative SSI is to annul it. That has generally been the reason why ministers have not come before committees on such instruments but officials have. We should ask officials to come, and I am sure that they will comply with that request. We can also request that a minister come. If no minister can come, that will not prevent us from taking additional evidence on the regulations or hinder our consideration of them, as it is highly unlikely that we will annul them. Most committee members think that the regulations are worthy of support, but they would like to explore some of the policy issues.
Meeting closed at 11:20.
Previous
Education and Skills Bill