Members will recall that last week we wanted clarification on some areas of the bill. We have a memorandum from the Scottish Executive in response, which some members received only this morning. I welcome David Stewart, head of the opportunities for learning division, Scottish Executive, and Allan Wilson, Education and Training (Scotland) Bill team leader, Scottish Executive. Since we have not had much time to digest the memorandum, would you say a few words on it? We will then move on to questioning.
We have provided a note expanding on the financial memorandum, which we hope will address the committee's concerns. As with any new programme, at this stage all the figures are estimates. On administration costs, the contract with the customer services provider will be for a set period of time so that costs can be reviewed in the light of experience. We envisage the unit cost of administering a learning account reducing as the number of accounts increases.
Thank you. I should have said at the start that that Kenneth Macintosh has sent his apologies and that Richard Simpson, who raised a number of points last week, is unable to be here at the beginning of the meeting although he will join us later.
Last week we were aghast at the on-cost percentages. I have not had a chance to read the note fully but one question we asked was whether that was usual.
In developing the programme we began from scratch with a zero budget, if you like, based on what would be needed to make the initiative a success. There is no obvious comparator in lifelong learning. For example, while the further and higher education funding councils give grants, they give large amounts to a small number of institutions. In other training programmes, the whole provision is bought as part of the contract. The costs that are given are what we think will be needed to deliver the programme that ministers wish to achieve; they are not derived from any other programme.
I asked that question because when I was a councillor I sat on the board of an arm's-length training company in the Stirling area. It provided training services, shorter courses and tailored packages for young people. We did not have the sort of mark-up envisaged in the form of, if you like, retained gross margin before operating costs. It was a small operation and there were many like it elsewhere in Scotland. I presume that part of this programme is to move that agenda on. The operating costs in that company were much lower. It is obvious that a much larger marketing exercise is envisaged in this case; you are proposing a maximum sum budget as opposed to a predictive sum.
Yes—I hope we will see a change in that ratio as the programme is established, as the idea takes hold and as economies of scale in administering the accounts kick in.
The question put by Dr Simpson last week expressed our concern about what appears to be around 20 per cent of the overall budget going on administration. That struck us as very high. From what you said, no attempt was made to see whether that was high compared with other programmes. We wanted to hear your explanation of why administration is such a high proportion and whether that will be reflected in other similar programmes.
Those figures are unlikely to be reflected over time. We are faced with a number of one-off costs. We have had to set up the process from scratch. That has meant a quite expensive procurement exercise. We have also been establishing contingency arrangements, to ensure the system will work. Once those costs are taken out of the process you will find that the overall costs will reduce remarkably.
That is reasonable.
We have estimated that the overall administrative cost will be about £2.5 million over two years. In the first year, the cost is likely to be about £1.5 million, of which £500,000 is the roll-out and contingency costs, which are one-off costs, and about £300,000 is for procurement and development. In the second year, we expect that the cost will reduce to about £1 million, of which £500,000 will be for marketing. About the same sum will be for research and evaluation and administration.
What is the cost of each of the three pilot projects, in Fife, Grampian and Lochaber? Is that contained in the £2.5 million?
The costs for the Grampian and Lochaber projects are contained in the £2.5 million. At the moment, I do not have a breakdown of those costs. As the Fife project was not a formal pilot and was funded by European structural funds, the costs for it are separate.
Were roughly the same number of people involved in each project?
I will add to what Allan Wilson said. The Grampian pilot cost £100,000 to administer and £250,000 has been paid in incentives so far.
That administrative cost is very high.
Yes. The key point is that we are starting up a new idea.
Is one of the main aims of the pilot projects to streamline the administration and find ways of reducing the on-going costs? You mentioned that procurement is one cost; can you define what you mean by that?
I will answer those points in reverse order. We are involved in a UK-wide procurement exercise, although each country will sign separate contracts because our needs are slightly different from those down south. The costs that are involved are for professional legal and procurement advice and for working out much of the detail of how the system will work. The procurement requires a very detailed specification of the system. In producing that specification, we have leaned heavily on the experience that we have gained from the pilots in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK. We have tried to produce a system that will work effectively. In doing that, we have sought opportunities to streamline the system to establish whether particular steps need to be taken or whether there is another way of doing it.
Did you deal with my first point? What was my first point? You said you would answer in reverse order and you have told me about procurement.
Your first question was about the lessons that we have learned from the pilot.
The main point was my concern that the pilots should be used to find ways of cutting the administrative cost.
The pilots have been used in a variety of ways, certainly including that.
You say that the procurement is being done on a UK basis. Are the one-off set-up costs here comparable to the costs in England? Carrying out the procurement on a UK basis should reduce costs.
I think that we will find that some of the one-off costs down south are higher than the costs here—certainly our costs are not higher than those down south. In England, there is a greater variety of types of pilot, which are being run by different organisations, whereas we have been centralising the process.
In paragraph 4 of the note that you supplied for the meeting, you cover the types of people you are trying to encourage back, such as adults who have not been in learning since school, the socially excluded, and people in employment, especially in small or medium enterprises. You say that they are notoriously difficult groups to reach. You have based the cost of £16.5 million on an uptake of 100,000 in the first two years. How did you reach that nice round figure? If those groups are notoriously difficult to reach, how confident can you be that you can reach them in two years? If you do not succeed, what will happen to the £16.5 million? Presumably, it will simply be reduced.
The target arises from the commitment in the programme for government that 100,000 individual learning accounts would be opened in Scotland. At the general election, there was a target of 1 million accounts across the UK, of which 100,000 was the pre-devolution Scottish share. The amount that is spent on incentives will be determined by the take-up, which could be higher or lower than 100,000, depending on how quickly the initiative takes hold of the imagination and is developed.
Paragraph 4 of your statement refers to
Individual learning accounts and the Scottish university for industry are primarily separate. Scottish UFI will have an important role in promoting not just the opportunities for learning and the courses that are available, which is its prime function, but in giving the added message that people may be able to get financial support for learning through ILAs. The Scottish UFI budget will be provided through a contract from the Scottish Executive. It will be a separate contract for all its functions. The budget for ILAs is separate from that. SUFI is very comfortable with the idea that it can promote ILAs at the same time as it puts out the wider message about lifelong learning. Those two messages together make a much stronger point.
I do not argue about the marketing. I am seeking clarity only about the cash flow. A budget goes to the Scottish university for industry and it is paid to carry out marketing on your behalf, on a directional basis.
Yes.
I want to return to the matter of the £2.5 million for marketing, research and evaluation. Given that certain groups are extremely hard to get hold of—that was reflected in the pilot studies, for example the Grampian pilot—will any of that money be ring-fenced and targeted at those groups or used to develop the linkages that were found to be necessary to get hold of people who are not accustomed to learning?
Your colleagues on the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee have been particularly concerned about how the initiative will be marketed and how marketing can be targeted at particular groups. The prime intention is that Scottish UFI will do the national awareness-raising marketing and local enterprise companies will focus marketing locally on particular groups and needs. Using their local contacts, they will develop a local marketing plan as part of the learning accounts initiative to focus on the groups that need to be reached in their areas. Each LEC will receive a sum of money through Scottish Enterprise or Highlands and Islands Enterprise for that.
So some of that £2.5 million will be divided among local enterprise companies, which can decide how they want to spend that money. If they want they can target certain groups.
If there are no further questions, I thank Mr Stewart and Mr Wilson for being with us today. The committee will now move to agree—I think—that the Parliament should pass a financial resolution in regard to the Education and Training (Scotland) Bill. Is that agreed?
Yes.
Meeting continued in private.
Meeting resumed in public.
Next
Convener's Report