Education and Skills Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1224, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on the Education and Skills Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation. Maureen Watt will speak to and move the motion.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of this legislative consent motion on the Education and Skills Bill. The main focus of the bill is the proposal to raise to 18 the age at which young people in England can leave education or training. The Scottish Government is committed to encouraging young people to stay in education and training after the age of 16, but we do not consider that raising the compulsory leaving age in Scotland would be the best way of bringing about that change.
However, we are not debating the merits of raising the leaving age today. The LCM deals only with the data-sharing aspects of the bill. Those data-sharing aspects will allow information on further education qualifications to be matched to Department for Work and Pensions information and to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs information. Such information will allow those organisations to monitor the labour market outcomes—including earnings and employment rates—for those taking part in further education courses. Such analysis is not currently possible in Scotland.
One of the aims of the Scottish Government's skills strategy is to ensure that investment in the skills of people living in Scotland allows those people to contribute as much as possible to sustainable economic growth. We therefore believe that it would be helpful to extend the bill's data-sharing provisions to Scotland. That would allow Scottish ministers, if they so wished, to share information on further education qualifications and to allow analysis to be carried out. The data would be shared for research purposes only and would not be used to identify individuals for any reason.
The Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee supports the Scottish Government's approach. I trust that Parliament will do so too.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the relevant provisions of the Education and Skills Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 28 November 2007, to make provision within the legislative competence of the Parliament and to alter the executive competence of Scottish Ministers in respect of using and sharing information in relation to skills and training of people in Scotland, should be considered by the UK Parliament.
I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words on the Education and Skills Bill legislative consent motion. It concerns an issue that is close to my heart and in which I take a close interest. We all recognise that positive learning experiences benefit not just individuals but businesses and the wider economy. The importance of information sharing and database building cannot be overstated, which is why I am pleased to support the LCM.
Before I joined the Parliament, I used to challenge the perception that training is a cost rather than an investment. The Parliament needs to challenge that perception too. I fully support the measures contained in the bill, which will build confidence that money and time invested by Governments, employers and individuals will achieve long-term results. It is important that we match up the training opportunities we provide with economic priorities for Scotland. The measures contained in the bill will do that. I would argue that that is even more important in Scotland, because enterprise and economic issues no longer sit in the same portfolio as lifelong learning.
Employers are key to the agenda, and any information that encourages their wider involvement is welcome. The Government has placed much emphasis on the role of skills development Scotland in moving forward the lifelong learning agenda. I admit to having some concerns about the workload and clarity of the new organisation. It would be helpful if the minister would confirm whether it will take forward some of the activities identified in the bill.
The minister mentioned aspects of the bill that will not apply to Scotland but which deal with issues that are relevant throughout the UK. It is important to mention that the bill raises the participation age—rather than the school leaving age—to properly address vocational opportunities for people aged between 14 and 18. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report into Scottish education highlights that we need to provide more vocational training for 14 to 18-year-olds. I would be interested to hear whether the Government intends to do that. The bill also provides for free training in basic literacy and numeracy up to level 2. I would be interested to hear how the Government intends to take that forward in Scotland, as it is another area where I believe we can do better. The bill lays much of the groundwork that will support the introduction of an apprenticeship reform bill at Westminster, which will give a right to a modern apprenticeship to all 16 to 18-year-olds who meet the entry requirements.
Those are all issues that were identified by the Leitch review. They are not exclusive to England—although there is legislation to tackle them there—and they are very relevant to Scotland. I and, I am sure, colleagues throughout the Parliament will be interested to hear how the Government intends to address the matters that I have mentioned.
I look forward to hearing more about the Government's plans to address high-quality skills development in Scotland, as well as the role of skills development Scotland as progress is made in that direction. I assure the minister that I make these points not to seek political advantage but out of concern that, without appropriate legislative measures, we will find ourselves lagging behind not only our international competitors but other parts of the UK in terms of workforce development.
Colleagues in Parliament will already be aware from my comments in the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee on 23 January that I have pledged my support and that of the Scottish Conservatives for the legislative consent motion. The routes that young people take between school and further education and employment these days are increasingly diverse and complex. Therefore, any information that can better inform us about that process, and the better matching of education data and data for income and benefits, should be greatly welcomed. That information should be welcomed on two fronts: first, because it better informs us about the reasons why young people select particular courses and employment options, which has important implications for the Scottish economy; and secondly, because it provides us with far more insight into young people's expectations of our educational institutions.
The minister will know that, during committee discussion of the bill, members sought reassurance that the necessary safeguards will be put in place to guarantee the correct use and appropriate protection of the data. I ask the minister to put on record this afternoon that she is confident that that is the case. It is essential for the Government to be able to assure us that the public can have full trust in the process, so that we minimise any risk of computer disks going missing in the post or getting stolen out of a car boot.
Although the Education and Skills Bill mainly sets out provisions that apply only in England, it is important to establish what the potential implications could be in Scotland. Rachel Sunderland from the Scottish Government schools directorate assured the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee that she
"had a number of discussions at official level"
about some potential
"cross-border issues",
especially concerning
"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"—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 23 January 2008; c 565.]
if that young person went on to educational courses or employment in the south.
I seek assurance from the minister that there are no loopholes in that respect. If the law in England is to be changed to ensure that Scottish students remain in full-time education until they are 18, questions arise about students domiciled in Scotland who wish to take up an opportunity in England. Perhaps the minister could put on record whether she is confident that any loopholes there will be ironed out.
Liberal Democrats support the measures in the UK bill that will allow better information to come to the Scottish Government on the post-school economic activity of young people over the age of 19. Clauses 71 to 75 are the key parts of the bill that will give applicability across the whole of the UK, if we agree to the legislative consent motion. Liz Smith sought clarification on this point, as will I. Clause 74, which would apply to Scotland, creates a new criminal offence on the misuse of data transferred across the border between the UK bodies and the Scottish ministers. Clarity is required as to whether a new criminal offence should be created in Scotland through a legislative consent motion procedure. I am certain that Scottish National Party members have commented on that approach in the past.
The measures in the bill give powers to Scottish ministers to give the UK Government information in devolved areas of education and training. That is all well and good, and that will receive cross-party support today, as will the use of the legislative consent motion procedure itself. It is a proportionate means of bringing about the proposed measures. I note the shock and horror in the reaction of SNP members to the Prime Minister's recent comment that Westminster may legislate in areas that are currently under the authority of the Scottish Parliament. That should be balanced by the fact that, since the present Scottish Government came to office, four bills have been introduced to the Parliament, compared with five legislative consent motions giving power to Westminster to legislate on our behalf.
During the meeting of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee on 23 January, I asked the Minister for Schools and Skills whether
"Giving permission to the DWP and HMRC to access educational data in Scotland is purely within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament."
The minister indeed confirmed that it was. I asked why the Government had brought about the procedure. The response was that, if it did not do so,
"That would mean that the Scottish Government would have to draft a bill and put it to the Scottish Parliament … We thought that the legislative consent motion was a more direct and less complicated route than drafting a bill for the Scottish Parliament."—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 23 January 2008; c 564, 563.]
Does the member agree that it is an interesting paradox that there have been more bills at Westminster affecting Scotland in the current session than there are bills here?
I readily agree. It is even more interesting because, in 2005, Stewart Stevenson, who is now Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, attacked me for supporting a legislative consent motion. He said:
"Ladies and gentlemen, I prefer to legislate by the democratic decision of the people in this place, who understand Scotland's needs and traditions."—[Official Report, 2 February 2005; c 14155.]
The LCM before us now was lodged by Fiona Hyslop, who said on 29 January 2002 in connection with the Sewel motion procedure:
"despite devolution Scotland is still suffering from a democratic deficit."
She said that the Executive at the time
"appear content to pass through Westminster initiated legislation on the nod without allowing the Scottish Parliament to have a full and frank debate on the subject matter."
Nicola Sturgeon went further in 2004, saying:
"Sewel motions have become an abuse of Parliament."
Yet LCMs are apparently an "abuse of Parliament" that is "less complicated" for the SNP than introducing legislation here.
The Government needs to provide clarification on the issues of substance, such as the cross-border issues. The minister confirmed in committee that if a child is resident in England but schooled in Scotland, they will be subject to the application of the bill. Is that still the case? If so, what discussions have Scottish ministers had with their UK counterparts about that? What guidance will be given to Scottish providers? What funding will be given? To whom and by whom will it be given? Will a new criminal offence be created through the passing of this legislative consent motion on the use of data?
I will first address some of the comments from members, whom I thank for their contributions. I agree totally with John Park that employers should see training not as a cost but as an investment. By gathering these statistics, we will be able to share with employers information on rising employment rates, wage rates and cost-effective investment in their businesses. John Park also made points about taking forward the skills strategy, literacy and numeracy. I really do not think that the debate on this LCM is the time to debate such issues. However, I say to him that Scotland is not lagging behind in terms of the number of modern apprenticeships per population.
Liz Smith raised issues of data security. This Government takes data security extremely seriously. Although there is absolutely no guarantee that there will be no data security problems, various precautions are taken to minimise the risk of them. The data will not identify any individual and will be confined to people working in this area of data collection and statistical analysis.
Liz Smith and Jeremy Purvis mentioned loopholes. As I said in committee, civil servants are having discussions with officials in England about that. If a young person is resident in England but attends school in Scotland, the proposed duty will affect them, irrespective of where they go to school—it is all about the country of residence. If a young person is resident in Scotland but their parents live in England, the young person, as a resident of Scotland, will not be covered by the legislation. If they are employed in England but resident in Scotland, they will not be covered by the legislation, but their employer may be covered. Given that the legislation is not due to come into force until 2013 and 2015, the Government will continue to have discussions about such issues with our counterparts.
I am grateful for that clarification. If there is a duty on Scottish providers to provide education or training in Scotland for post-16 England-resident pupils, who will pay for it?
Given that we have now had a number of months of the new SNP Government, will the minister confirm that more legislation on devolved issues is going through the Westminster Parliament than is going through this Parliament?
Minister, I must ask you to answer that and wind up fairly quickly.
I can confirm that this Government is doing the job that it has been elected to do. I also confirm that as long as Scotland does not have all the legislative competence that we in this Government require, we will govern cost effectively for the taxpayers of this country.
You should close now, please, minister.
I hope that the whole Parliament will agree to the LCM.