Official Report 166KB pdf
Simon Watkins will introduce item 3, which concerns the remit for the inquiry into lifelong learning.
Members will recall the discussion about the possibility of having an adviser for the initial work on the lifelong learning inquiry. There have been various discussions among members to date, but the committee has never discussed the basis of our intended inquiry. Lifelong learning is a broad area. The draft remit and the research that SPICe has prepared—which examines the other work that has been done in this area—are intended to give members a feel for the sort of area that they would like the remit to focus on. We can take that away and work on the specific questions that the inquiry will seek to answer. That is the usual way in which we have tried to structure our work.
Would Marilyn Livingstone like to comment, as this has been her baby?
The documents and some of the information that has been provided by SPICe are most helpful. I would like to hear from other people, because I have a firm view of what I would like to come out of the inquiry. It might be useful if I say something at the end of the discussion.
I take the point that, depending on how we define lifelong learning, we could end up with an incredibly broad remit. If "tertiary education" is read to mean education that people have after they leave school and before they go into their first main job, the remit is too narrow. It does not take on board some of the things that are referred to in the SPICe paper on lifelong learning, which tries to consider lifelong learning within the context of what we require for the economy and the direction in which that will develop.
Hear, hear.
Could the new wording be "post-compulsory"?
"Continuing education and training" would cover it.
The phrase "continuing post-school" might be appropriate.
The other important dimension is the idea of part-time, full-time and multiple-mode education. The classic view of further and higher education has tended to relate to the traditional notion of a student. If we are to depart from that, we must say something about part-time and multi-mode education.
The words "comprehensive strategy" are designed to encompass all that.
That aspect needs to be identified.
Should not we identify that in questions? We are discussing the broad remit. After we agree to that, we can discuss specific questions. The issue also relates partly to delivery mechanisms.
That aspect must be taken on board, because it is fundamental.
I agree with Des McNulty, but I have a tiny addition to what he says. The remit is drawn with a broad brush, but I would like it to include education during work and how education dovetails with work. If people change careers and retrain, much of that training will take place during work.
Annabel Goldie suggests that the words "continuing post-school" should make that clear.
I am not unhappy with what has been said about the remit. My question is about the time scale. I know that we have agreed that. How long is the inquiry expected to last? That will have a bearing on the remit.
Given that we have the SHEFC inquiry, we intend to agree the remit, work programme and methodology for the lifelong learning inquiry before the summer recess starts. We will probably start the serious evidence taking when we return after the recess, by which time we should have concluded or nearly concluded the SHEFC inquiry. That is the broad time scale.
When are you thinking of concluding the inquiry?
We have not discussed that. The time for discussing that is when we have had the second round of discussions, on the follow-up questions. I hope that we would consider no longer than three or four months. That is the rough time scale in my head. Given that we have no other major inquiries planned for that period and that, to the best of my knowledge, we are not due to consider any bills, we will be able to devote much time to the inquiry. We wanted to agree to the general remit today. If we have that agreement, we will produce another paper on the suggested work programme, the outline time scale, the organisations to be interviewed and the questions that we want to ensure we cover. This is just the start of the process.
Elaine Thomson has said it all. The inquiry should concentrate on post-16 education and training and consider all the training providers that are involved with young people, people who are returning to study and others. Huge budgets are spent outwith traditional further and higher education. We must consider that.
Scottish Enterprise spends £120 million on training.
That is right.
I think that we have general agreement on the remit.