Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 25, 2000

Official Report 664KB pdf

---

Education and Training (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Let us get on with the debate.

On a point of order.

Another point of order?

My point of order is about this debate.

We are about to debate stage 1 of the Education and Training (Scotland) Bill, which is concerned with the principles of the bill. However, the bill contains no principles; it contains only a list of sections that enable statutory instruments to be brought in so that money can be spent.

Although the bill has been accorded legislative competence, a number of issues arise from having a debate on the principles of a bill that contains no statement of any principles of any kind. Perhaps the matter should be taken to the Procedures Committee so that it can consider carefully and in time whether we are setting a very undesirable precedent by allowing this debate to take place.

I do not have a copy of the bill in front of me. However, I will reflect on what you have said and will write to you and the Procedures Committee if necessary.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to move on and open today's debate on the general principles of the Education and Training (Scotland) Bill. We are all grateful to John Swinney's excellent Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee for its support for the general principles and for its positive comments and suggestions.

The bill is intended to provide Scottish ministers with the necessary powers to introduce individual learning accounts as part of our overall approach to lifelong learning. It is slightly unusual, as it links to two other pieces of legislation that are currently going through the UK Parliament.

In our programme for government, we set a target of 100,000 accounts to be opened in Scotland by 2002, and we expect that tens of thousands of people will make the most of the new learning accounts from this autumn. Individual learning accounts will help people to invest in their own learning, with contributions from the state and very often employers, as well as from the individuals themselves.

We want to develop a learning society in Scotland in which everyone, from whatever background, should expect to upgrade their skills continually throughout their life. We need to revolutionise current attitudes to learning. Our priority is to reach first-time learners and individuals from disadvantaged communities and to convince deprived and disadvantaged people that lifelong learning is crucial to their future. Although that will be a major task, there is already clear evidence that there is a huge demand for new learning and new skills. Learning centres are being opened throughout Scotland and learning houses have already been successful in some of our most disadvantaged communities. However, if people are to develop the learning habit, they need ready access to information, as well as funding.

I recognise that the Executive is already targeting efforts at disadvantaged communities. How will the Executive achieve—in the current parlance—joined-up arrangements with those efforts? Nothing in any of the guidance that has been issued so far suggests how it will link the learning-house arrangements to the ILAs.

The partnership of the local enterprise companies and the Scottish university for industry—now to be known as learndirect Scotland—will be crucial to that issue.

Learndirect Scotland will be launched later this year and will provide information on all kinds of learning opportunities across the country. The ILAs and the establishment of learndirect Scotland will together help many more people along the road of lifelong learning.

Employers, trade unions, learning providers in the public and private sectors, and guidance providers all have key roles to play in encouraging people to open learning accounts. We have consulted them widely throughout the initial stages and will ensure that the consultation continues as learning accounts develop.

Over the past few months, an extensive ILA pilot was undertaken by Scottish Enterprise Grampian, and Scottish Enterprise Fife had a similar initiative. Vital lessons that we learned from those experiences have influenced the development of the ILA design. Those pilot schemes confirmed concerns that the need for a special bank account was seen by many individuals from disadvantaged communities as a barrier to participating in the new learning accounts. That requirement for a special and separate bank account has now been dropped. As a result, there has been a surge in demand for individual learning accounts in Grampian. Before the requirement was dropped, around 100 account holders had come forward. Now, only a few months later, we have more than 2,000. That is a significant increase in a five-month period and shows that we are on track to meet the ambitious target of 100,000 new accounts in the next two years. Grampian is generally reckoned to have about 10 per cent of Scotland's population. Those 2,000 account holders in Grampian can be multiplied up to 20,000 to give a figure for the whole of Scotland. That shows that our target is achievable.

I appreciate that the minister's approach seems to be to listen to reasoned argument and to make concessions. He has stated that, in the light of the Grampian experience, the requirement of opening what he referred to as a special bank account has been dropped. Does that mean that it will not be necessary for the qualifying person to have a bank account at all?

That is correct: a bank account will not be required. That was one of the things that was seen as a barrier. The legislation from the UK Government still provides for bank accounts to be established, but that would be for a development of the individual learning accounts, which many of us see as a way forward for the kind of training that we are talking about today and for many other areas of post-16 provision.

We will continue to find ways of developing the individual learning accounts and we will be rolling out further field testing from June. Work has already started in Lochaber, as Fergus Ewing knows. I am pleased to say—this is a response to the comments from the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee—that, on a pilot basis, a small discretionary fund has been established to help to meet some travel and child care costs in the pilot area of Lochaber. That is an issue that we will continue to discuss at stage 2 of the bill and through the summer. Only yesterday, as I hinted at a meeting of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, Henry McLeish announced additional funding of £8 million for child care costs for students, particularly those in further education, although it will also assist those who are attending our universities.

The accounts will be available to everyone in Scotland aged 18 and over, but it is important that we encourage non-traditional learners to take them up. People with low levels of skill will generally have the most to gain from the initiative. We will therefore concentrate much of our marketing effort, through the local enterprise companies, on such groups.

Learndirect Scotland will be charged with promoting lifelong learning and increasing the take-up of learning by non-traditional learners, the socially excluded and smaller businesses. It will take the lead nationally in promoting learning accounts—again, that is a response to the concerns of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. The key role in linking communities with employers and learning providers at the local level will be played by the local enterprise companies. By that dual approach—the local enterprise companies at the local level and learndirect Scotland at the national level—we hope to carry out a sustained marketing campaign to get the message across about the opportunities that are offered by individual learning accounts.

As Nicol knows, I am not a member of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, so I am listening with great interest. If a constituent tells me that they are interested in the scheme, to whom do I refer that constituent in order to allow them to claim the money that Nicol is talking about?

There will be a national campaign and learndirect Scotland will have a national freephone number that the constituent can call. That would be the simplest gateway. The local enterprise companies will be aware of the programme and will help to put together schemes involving a group of employees in a small or medium-sized business. The role of the local enterprise company would ultimately be to put that individual, or group of individuals, in contact with learndirect Scotland, which will administer and create the gateway for the scheme.

This is an important issue. None of us would want a bureaucratic and expensive system for ensuring that the money reaches the people whom we want it to reach. Will each LEC be allocated a certain amount for its area, or will the money be allocated according to the number of requests that are received from each area?

The system will be demand led, based on the requests that are received. I do not want to mislead members. There will also be a contractor, who will be responsible for the administration. That contract will be let shortly, and the contractor will work with learndirect Scotland. The database and processing will be managed by the contractor, but the individual will not see the contractor: the promotion, marketing and signing-up to individual learning accounts will be conducted through learndirect Scotland.

Although unemployed people will also be eligible for individual learning accounts, their needs will most often be better met through other initiatives that are specifically targeted at the unemployed and that are already available. Those include the new deal and training for work.

Learning accounts are not aimed only at new learners. We also need to encourage existing learners to do more to develop their skills. Subject to the passing of the bill, the first 100,000 account holders—wherever they come from—will receive £150 from the Scottish Executive towards learning costs if they commit to spend £25 on eligible learning. Thereafter, anyone who has a starter account will be entitled to a 20 per cent—and, in some cases, an 80 per cent—discount on future learning costs.

The incentives and discounts under learning accounts may be used for a very wide range of learning opportunities. Almost all types of learning are included, with only a few specific exclusions, such as driving, flying and scuba-diving lessons. The higher level of support—the 80 per cent discount—will be available for basic skills courses in numeracy, literacy and computing skills.

Many people will undertake courses leading to accredited qualifications, but others will require pre-access courses to build up their confidence and basic skills. Once people have started, we hope that they will be motivated to move on to more formal qualifications. The incentives may be used for all course costs and to pay for guidance from an approved guidance provider.

The investment in learning accounts is considerable: a total of £23 million is being invested. This initiative will take training and skills beyond the traditional college or university campus. Learndirect Scotland will have a network of local learning centres operated by a huge range of providers. The development of local learning centres, distance-learning packages and online tutorial support will transform dramatically the way in which people in this country approach learning. We need to get the right learning at the right time, and at the right cost. That means gaining access to new skills and new learning in all our communities in all parts of Scotland.

We have consulted widely on individual learning accounts, and I commend the bill to the Parliament. The bill and the subsequent regulations will provide the necessary powers to introduce this exciting new initiative in the autumn.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Education and Training (Scotland) Bill.

The SNP supports the general aim—and I use that word advisedly—of the bill. The aim is to make provision for the payment of grants in respect of the education and training of certain individuals. That seems to be the clear aim of the bill, as set out in the preamble, and I think that all members would subscribe to it.

As MSPs, some of us have tried to upskill by learning how to use e-mail and computers. We have received assistance from the excellent staff, who have helped us to become more technologically adept—with greater or lesser success. I hope that, in the Scottish work force as a whole, people are recognising the need to upskill, whether or not they are ex-boilermakers like Duncan McNeil—I know that it is going to be a long, sleepy afternoon, Duncan, but I will try to keep things going. We can all agree that we all need to upskill, especially when the role of technology, particularly computers and e-mail, becomes ever more important and apparent in life.

The committees, especially the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, have played an important role in the deliberations so far. I record our thanks to the clerks: Simon Watkins and David McLaren, who are here today, and Mark MacPherson, who I presume is somewhere working away. I also thank Alasdair Rankin of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. They have done an excellent task in a very short space of time.

The bill is a slim volume indeed. It is the shortest bill that I have ever seen—the definition of shellfish poisoning was probably longer.

What about Tavish's bill?

Will the member give way?

I think that Tavish may give us an advertorial for his bill.

I am not going to advertise anything, except to remind Fergus that there is a two-line bill that is even shorter. I will be grateful for his support in its later stages.

I commend Tavish Scott to parliamentary draftsmen throughout Scotland. We support the aims of his bill.

Section 1 of the Education and Training (Scotland) Bill says:

"Scottish Ministers may make regulations authorising grants to be paid".

It also says that regulations under section 1 may provide

"that grants may not be paid".

Section 2 says:

"Arrangements qualify under this section if they satisfy such conditions as the Scottish Ministers may make by regulations".

Section 3 says that regulations may be made. That is all that the bill says.

With respect to the minister, whose good faith and intention to adopt a positive approach to achieve the aims to which we subscribe I recognise, let me say that the approach of this bill is wholly inappropriate and sets a thoroughly bad precedent for the Parliament to follow. What are we debating today? We do not know. We do not know what the proposals are because the Executive has not said. We are having a debate in a vacuum. We do not know who will qualify for assistance. We are not sure whether the scheme is only for people who are employed. We do not know if it will include the self-employed. If it does not, the bill is flawed. I invite the minister to intervene—are the self-employed going to be eligible?

The self-employed will be eligible.

I am delighted to hear that. When I was a lawyer, people used to say, "Never ask a question unless the answer is known." Unfortunately, what the minister says is not what the illustrative statutory instrument, which is supposed to help, says. It says that one must be employed. I accept that the minister is acknowledging that the illustrative guidelines are flawed—they have been countermanded by what he has said. That is welcome, because it would be wrong to exclude the self-employed, as it would be wrong to exclude others, but it illustrates the point that I made in my point of order—that we do not know what we are debating.

Mr Swinney will talk later about the evidence taken by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. Other members will speak about the problems identified by the committee. There are disadvantages for rural communities, for those who need child care to be able to take up learning, for those who are extremely disadvantaged, perhaps unemployed and bereft of skills, and for the disabled who may not be able to participate without additional support—we do not know whether they will be able to get support or, if they can, from which source. Moreover, we do not know how much of the £23 million is going to subsidise training that is already being done.

Mr McKelvie of Scottish Power and Grahame Smith, the deputy general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, dealt with those points very well as witnesses to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning committee. The plethora of schemes is very confusing for employers. I believe that the LECs should have local discretion, but the bill does not say whether they will. The evidence that we had was valuable, but it was insufficient. It was useful, but the witnesses could not address the Executive's proposals, because we did not have those proposals.

I am reminded of the novel by Franz Kafka called "The Trial", in which an individual faced unspecified charges in an uncertain world where nothing was ever made clear. Perhaps he could have written a book called "The Parliament" or "The Bill". I hope that in future such a bill will not be brought before the Parliament for a non-debate on principles that have not been set out in any clear fashion.

I welcome the opportunity to open the debate for the Conservatives and I welcome much of the minister's sentiment and his genuine desire to promote a culture in which people reapproach learning and place it at the centre of their lives. The Conservatives feel that it is absolutely correct that people should be encouraged to take personal responsibility for their progress through life.

The bill is before us as a result of clause 96 of the Learning and Skills Bill that is now passing through Westminster. Nevertheless, we welcome the opportunity to debate the individual learning account or, as Fergus Ewing said, the little that we know about it so far. We also recognise the need to support business by providing the training and skills needed to build a work force so that all Scotland can prosper. I thank the clerks for a job well done under pressing and trying circumstances. I got hold of a copy of the Learning and Skills Bill—or about a third of it. It is an extremely complicated measure and we must realise that all we are dealing with is the Scottish enabling legislation.

As Fergus Ewing indicated, and as the report of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee has pointed out, we are in a strange situation. We are invited to approve the principles of a bill that enables the minister to introduce regulations, without having the detailed regulations themselves to examine. We feel that the principle of skimpy primary legislation followed by weighty regulations as secondary legislation is not a practice that we would like to be adopted in the normal course of events. The principle of proper study in committee of the regulations would be a better way to proceed.

Many questions arise, some from the consultation exercise, some from the glossy brochure and some from the private studies conducted in Fife and in Grampian. The consultation document spoke of the need for a scheme that is open, transparent and easily accessible to stakeholders, employers and learning providers—a point reiterated by Glasgow Chamber of Commerce. It called for smooth linkages between the parties and mentioned the possibility of tax relief for providers of funds other than employers. None of that is before us today. It is essential that the Executive consult those bodies in drafting the final version of the regulations. That consultation must continue through the process of introduction of the individual learning accounts.

We welcome the willingness to learn from on-the-ground experience and to amend policy by dropping the need for separate bank accounts. However, some questions will be answered only by the regulations, particularly as regards employers' contributions and how they may be withdrawn if an employee fails to complete a course or leaves the employment that has partially funded the course. We are also concerned about the practicality of small and medium enterprises releasing employees for training, given the difficulties and stress that short-handed employers can face.

We welcome the announcement of the pilot, which shows that the Executive listens to some committee members, but we have questions about barriers to learning caused by rurality and the costs of child care or travel. We are concerned about the fairness of the allocation of the 100,000 places and about the allocation of funds to employees from public bodies such as local authorities, health boards, trusts and non-governmental organisations.

The role of the Scottish university for industry in validation will come under scrutiny. It might be interesting to note and further examine the evidence from the Glasgow themed action group, which calls for all supported learning to be included and not just that which is accredited or vocationally relevant. That view was echoed by Jack Kelly of Scottish Power plc. He believes that overcoming the fear of learning might have to be achieved using a process that does not necessarily fit the Government's immediate objective. In other words, the prescriptive nature of validation must be addressed.

The Conservatives welcome the introduction of ILAs, subject to some caveats. If this is a genuine first step to a unified system of funding for all post-school education and training, it will be welcomed by the business community and by higher and further education institutions. We must also examine the costs that are associated with the bill. The explanatory notes tell us that of the £23 million that is allocated for the provisions in the bill, £16.3 million will go on grants for the first two years and 20 per cent, or £4 million, will go to the customer service providers. The Conservatives ask that the Executive examine that carefully, because it seems to be an awfully large proportion of £23 million to give to the CSPs. A further 10 per cent will be spent on monitoring, research and marketing.

It is also worth noting that the Association of Scottish Colleges questions whether the resources targeted at 20 per cent discount courses will be sufficient. That organisation also points out that value-for-money studies must be carried out by the CSPs. We are all aware of the possibility of profiteering when Government money—even £16.3 million—is put out to the wider community.

The funding from the scheme must not be redirected from existing institutions—there must be some additionality in the system. There should be clear and unambiguous targets for progress and implementation and simple procedures that can be adopted with low levels of bureaucracy, to ensure the participation of all the target groups.

Having waded through the welter of "on-going considerations", "further discussions with" and "continuing contributions to wider debates on", I can do no better than to commend the view that has been expressed in the chamber in Glasgow that more detail is required to turn this sound concept into a successful scheme.

I call Allan Wilson to open for the Labour party. He has five minutes. I now see that Mr McNeil will do so.

Thank you. The second division—Fergus Ewing and I—are making speeches today, rather than John Swinney and others. [Laughter.] Anyway, I will press on.

I need tell no one in the chamber that the Scottish economy has seen enormous changes in the past decade. I am confronted by that fact every morning in my constituency, where traditional industry has declined. We used to build ships; we now build microchips and the computers to put them in. My constituency is now the export capital of Scotland—I never miss a chance to plug Greenock and Inverclyde—and it aspires to become the e-business and e-learning capital of Scotland.

We live and work in a global economy that is changing faster than ever before. The high-tech industry of today can easily become the museum piece of tomorrow. There is no single response to globalisation and modernisation—it cuts across large sections of our society and the economy. Our success or failure in the future will depend on our ability to adapt swiftly and effectively to change.

Part of that strategy will depend on having a highly skilled work force with the transferable skills and flexibility that will enable it to adapt to market changes. We must also embrace the knowledge economy. I hope that that will allow us to take advantage of changes, rather than fall victim to them.

To achieve the knowledge economy, we must deliver lifelong learning. That must be done not only through schools and colleges, but through a much-neglected area—the workplace. ILAs provide a significant opportunity. The chief executive of SUFI, Frank Pignatelli, has said that there is an opportunity to make Scotland competitive through its people.

There is wide recognition of the potential for ILAs to make a major contribution to the development of the culture of lifelong learning. There is, however, also recognition that there are issues about delivery. There are a number of potential barriers to access—I hope that we will address them during the passage of the bill—that can be addressed through personal contribution and a willingness to be involved. Some can be addressed through sponsorship, either by an employer or by a trade union.

As has been mentioned—and as will be mentioned again—there are issues relating to those who live in remote areas. There are also issues to do with providing guidance and support for those who are not naturally inclined to return to education and training—people who find it practically impossible to do that because they are working long hours or shift-working, people with child care requirements, or people who simply do not have the bus fare at the end of the week. We must ensure that those least likely to learn get their share of the cash. We also need to address the issue of employers using the funds to subsidise existing training budgets.

However, those are mere details. The principle of the bill—or lack of principle, as Fergus Ewing would have it—and its aims and objectives are important. I am sure that we will return at a later stage to many of the issues that I mentioned.

Let us be positive. As the most positive member of the most positive committee in the Parliament—I do not know why SNP members are smiling at that—I say that we must reject the cynicism that leads people to dismiss SUFI as a phone-a-friend helpline. We must see this initiative as a catalyst for bringing about the partnerships that we need. ILAs are not just about payment for training. They can achieve far more than that, by creating partnerships in the workplace and the community, and by promoting the learning culture that is vital to our success.

We must also convince employers and employees to invest and participate in education and training. We need to make it possible for them to do that. We need to increase the number of companies that offer training, education and personal development opportunities. Perhaps the debate on the bill will help us to achieve that. Rather than approaching the issue negatively, we should try to open up the best training initiatives offered by employers to employees' families and to the wider community. We could give them more money to train more people.

The goal must be to provide opportunities to people, so that they can escape low-paid, low-skill, dead-end jobs and start careers that increase their income and job satisfaction. The right to access is another issue. We must provide learning centres in supermarkets, workplaces and community halls, as well as in schools and colleges. We can use the bill to build and develop access. If we take a positive attitude, we can ensure that education and training do not end at the school gates and deliver lifelong learning for all.

It is my pleasure to continue on the positive note struck so ably by Duncan McNeil in his speech and to comment on the stage 1 report produced by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.

The minister will be aware that when the committee reports, it does so in a helpful way—to improve and strengthen proposals that the Government brings forward. If the Government brings forward good ideas, we will say that they are good ideas, although we may suggest ways of making them even better ideas. I will say something about that in a moment. However, I want to start by highlighting some of the difficulties that we face in relation to the legislation.

The legislation was introduced into the work programme of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee very late in the day, and we were given a very short time to consider it. That is not an isolated occurrence for committees of the Parliament, and a number of committees have complained about it. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee has asked me to express to ministers its concerns about the tight time scale within which we have had to operate.

We have been able to undertake limited but adequate consideration of, and consultation on, the issues concerned, because the Government itself undertook a vast proportion of the consultation before the development of the legislation. However, there is a serious issue in regard to the parliamentary process, which we must reflect on. We have been able to consider this short bill—which is largely about giving ministers powers to spend money—in the context of policy only because the Government gave us an illustrative set of regulations for the operation of the system. If that illustrative set of regulations had not been available, our consideration would have been somewhat on the bizarre side.

Many issues regarding the policy content of the regulations are raised in the committee's report. I hope that ministers will reflect on them, and that the minister will say in his closing remarks whether the Government can address some of them. However, in general, Parliament has to be careful about the balance between primary legislation and subordinate legislation, and how much regulation there is. All of us understand the need for flexibility. None of us wants there to be vast amounts of primary legislation to dot i's and cross t's, but we must have a balance that reflects the interests of Parliament in exercising effective scrutiny.

I would like to make three brief points on policy issues. First, the Government has to be clear about those whom the initiative is aimed at. It cannot be aimed exclusively at those who are already in employment and in some form of learning environment, nor can it be concerned exclusively with those who are least likely to learn, or who are currently outwith the learning process. However, it is more likely that the Government will be successful with the initiative among those who are in employment, and who have a relationship to the learning environment at present. The committee said in its stage 1 report that the Government must establish a balance between the underpinnings of the legislation and the rolling out of the regulations, which guarantees that those who are least likely to learn are more likely to get some benefit from the initiative.

Secondly, paragraphs 20 and 21 of the committee's report make a number of suggestions to the Executive on how to capture the attention and interest of those who are least likely to learn. The committee appreciated the efforts of the Scottish Enterprise Grampian and Scottish Enterprise Fife pilot exercises, but it freely conceded that it was difficult to capture the attention of those who are persistently least likely to learn. The Executive has to give disproportionate emphasis to the way in which the policy is rolled out. The committee has suggested how that might be done in paragraphs 20 and 21.

My third point concerns delivery. Margaret Ewing asked the minister the question that we all wrestle with at times when someone comes to our constituency surgery and wants to know something: where is the best place to send them? In this initiative, there must be clarity among providers. It must be clear how individuals can access the system. The minister addressed those points in response to Margaret Ewing.

However, some of the evidence that the committee received, and which was touched on in our report on local economic development, showed that there is congestion and uncertainty in many areas. Mr Pignatelli from SUFI gave us some optimism that those issues are being tackled, that the confusion is being attacked and that clarity is being offered. We warmly support the direction of his thinking, and look forward to those matters being developed.

The committee has undertaken limited but adequate consideration of the policy issues that are involved, and I hope that the minister can respond to some of the positive suggestions that have been made.

I will be brief, and continue the positive theme that was started by Fergus Ewing, albeit it is somewhat Kafkaesque, or certainly surreal.

Lifelong learning was a key component of the Scottish Labour party's manifesto for the 1999 Scottish election campaign. Integration of lifelong learning within the enterprise department was an early statement of the new partnership Executive's intent to promote our vision of stimulating a culture of lifelong learning in Scotland. That vision was referred to by Duncan McNeil and others.

Advancing basic literacy and numeracy skills through developing cutting-edge technology such as that at Cadence, and building a knowledge-based economy, are absolutely critical to Scotland's economic future. It is worth repeating the mantra that we cannot and should not be competing on the basis of having a low-wage and low-skill economy. The enlargement of the European Union to the east presents major challenges for Scotland's manufacturing base, the only response to which will be to have a high-skill and high-productivity economy that fosters the rewards of the accumulation of learning.

Scotland has suffered over the years from unemployment and skills shortages. There is no future for Scotland as a low-wage and low-skill economy. Individual learning accounts are therefore critical in addressing unemployment and skills shortages. Individual learning accounts empower people to take responsibility for their own intellectual development, through the gaining of transferable skills and portable qualifications in a lifetime of personal and career development. That process will contribute to a more modern and more productive economy and a better equipped work force.

However, that is not the sole objective. Empowering people to have a stake gives them greater control over their personal development, raises their horizons, and gives them the benefits of learning and increasing their own personal accumulation of knowledge and skills.

A knowledge-based economy is at the very heart of the new Labour project. I admit to Fergus Ewing that the bill is a very small part of that project. However, I believe that, whatever their shade of opinion, all members of all parties—and they are all represented here—can embrace and share that philosophy. That can be done within the wider agenda of tax breaks for employers, contributions towards eligible learning on a UK-wide basis, and the myriad other initiatives at Westminster and in this Parliament that promote lifelong learning and the knowledge-based economy, to which we all aspire and on which Scotland's economic future will be highly dependent.

The blank-sheet approach of the bill gives us an opportunity to tell the minister and the Scottish Executive of the many areas that the Parliament would like to be addressed in the forthcoming regulations. I take the blank-sheet approach as a positive sign that the minister is here to listen to the points that are raised. It is interesting to note that a common theme is beginning to appear. The barriers to access are a main cause of concern that must be addressed in the regulations.

In response to an intervention from Fergus Ewing on bank accounts, the minister said that it was not necessary to open a new bank account for an individual learning account. However, he implied that future developments of ILAs might lead to a need for bank accounts. I would like the minister to clarify that, because a problem in Scotland is that about 20 per cent of the population have no bank account. When we consider rurality and the increasing number of closures of bank branches, the issue of bank accounts will have to be addressed in both the short and the long term.

If we want to promote access to learning, we must ensure that that learning is provided throughout the country and is accessible to anybody who wants it. We cannot say that a person who lives near a big city will have access but that a person who lives near Fort William will have access to one college and one college only. We have to consider where the providers of lifelong learning are.

Duncan McNeil mentioned the time that is available for learning and the problems of shift workers. I know that it is a reserved issue, but we must address the fact that, in Scotland, we have the longest working hours in Europe. We have a 48-hour working week, unlike France, where there is a 35-hour working week. We should examine that. Lifelong learning is something that we need time for. We must open up the time that is available for people to obtain access to lifelong learning. Child care has been mentioned; the minister referred to the £8 million that was announced yesterday. I want an assurance from him that the £8 million for child care costs, for those in further education, will be available to people undertaking other forms of lifelong learning, such as short courses that are available through other providers.

The Scottish Enterprise Grampian pilot identified only one group within the 2,000 learners whom the minister has spoken about as being given assistance. That was assistance with child care through their local authority and their union, Unison. We must address that enormous issue.

It has been mentioned already that the Scottish Enterprise Grampian pilot identified that the people who were most in need of lifelong learning were those least likely to follow up the individual learning accounts. We must see more clearly how the Executive will resolve that. If there is a 100,000 target in the first two years, we want those most in need of lifelong learning to be within that 100,000 in the first two years, so that they benefit from the £150 incentive rather than the discount.

Duncan McNeil has already picked up on the point that there are individuals to whom £25 will be an insurmountable barrier. We must examine ways of releasing funds from unions or voluntary organisations, perhaps, to allow those individuals to open their learning account.

I was at a special educational needs school this morning. That brought to mind the thought of where and how we will ensure that the special needs of adults with learning difficulties are accounted for. Their needs will always mean that education and training is more expensive for them or for the provider. Where will we ensure that that is resolved for them?

I will discuss my hobby horse of the plethora of initiatives, which we have heard about already. A key element of SUFI is that its learning providers will provide learner support, yet we read that that will be one of the key aims of the customer services provider, a private company. The Executive has set aside £6.5 million—25 per cent of the individual learning account budget—for the customer services provider. How much of that money is being duplicated by services that are already provided by SUFI? I would like to see some joined-up government.

We must ensure that we provide a solution to the problem in Scotland. The problem is how we turn Scotland into a knowledge nation. The solution is what the Parliament will look for in the forthcoming regulations.

I shall take up Duncan McNeil's point that this is a second division debate, because George Lyon is in his constituency today, so I have been asked to fill in.

I have been impressed by the new politics approach to the debate. I can see the seamless movement of the new politics award from John Swinney and Henry McLeish to Duncan McNeil and Fergus Ewing. I can easily envisage them walking hand in hand up to the podium to collect that award next year.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the general approach of the Education and Training (Scotland) Bill; we have championed for some time the general principle of individual learning accounts. I welcome the Executive's commitment in the measures today to the promotion of lifelong learning and to help to overcome the financial barriers to learning that many individuals face.

I read with interest the evidence that ministers and witnesses gave to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. I will pursue a number of points on that. One of the more striking aspects is that there is some room for vision on issues such as this. On 10 May, in evidence to the committee, the minister correctly said that the measures focused on individuals and were aimed at empowering people to take greater responsibility for investing in their own learning.

That was important, as were the conclusions of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. In a section of the committee report called "The Principles of the Bill", it points out:

"The introduction of individual learning accounts has been welcomed by almost all organisations in the field, and has the potential to make a major contribution to the development of a culture of lifelong learning in Scotland."

The committee concluded:

"This willingness to learn from ‘on the ground' experience and amend policy as a result is very much welcomed by the Committee."

Fergus Ewing, the minister and others have made that point.

I will address three issues. The first is the prescription of learning opportunities. A Liberal Democrat concern and one arising from evidence to the committee is that, to avoid prescription, local flexibility should be considered to ensure that local needs are taken into account. That is important. Instead of creating a list of acceptable learning, it would be much better to start from the position that all learning is equally acceptable and will receive support unless specified otherwise. I understand from the ministerial evidence to the committee that that is the direction in which the Executive is moving, which is very welcome.

A second brief point is on the need to address provision in rural areas and particularly the issue of travel costs. I noted that point from the questions to the minister that Fergus Ewing pursued. Improvements in access to technology and flexible delivery are a key to rural opportunities. I was struck by Elaine Murray's questions on new technology networks, which are important for developing new technologies and linking into them. In my part of the world, there is the example of the objective 1—or son of objective 1—money that will be invested in information and communications technology developments, as long as we can convince the European Commission that that is the right way to spend the money. I believe that spending money on augmenting and improving the existing provision of soft infrastructure, thereby allowing companies and individuals to move forward, is important. The digital Scotland report, about which Pauline McNeill asked in question time, is pertinent in that regard.

There are concerns about geographical distance from teaching provision, which will be shared by any member who represents a rural area. I hope that the minister can give some reassurance on travel costs.

My final point is on the need to target the bill at non-learners and to reach unemployed people, and part-time and low-paid workers. The excluded and the potentially excluded could be the most difficult to recruit into the scheme. I hope that measures will be taken to ensure that that is not the case. In that spirit, should not there be targets for the most socially excluded groups? It would be right to target those groups, to ensure that those who are most in need of basic learning and training opportunities are not neglected. I support the proposals.

As a member of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, I am pleased to take part in the debate. I believe that the need to improve the skill levels of the Scottish work force has been widely recognised. Building a 21st century economy based on knowledge makes it essential that we develop a learning culture for everybody—young and old—and move away from the current position in which one in three people in the Scottish work force receives little or no employer-based training.

Individual learning accounts will give a major boost to the development of Scotland's learning culture. However well Scotland competes internationally in terms of graduates per head of population, it does not compare well internationally in on-going skills development and training while in employment. ILAs and the Scottish university for industry—learndirect Scotland, as it will be known—will be a cornerstone.

Individual learning accounts will allow people to take responsibility for their own learning, which is increasingly important, as people are now on average changing their job five times during their lifetime. They may not just be moving from one job to another; they may need reskilling from scratch. There are still some employers who do not understand the importance to their businesses of having highly skilled employees. As the initial 100,000 accounts are rolled out and the £150 is invested to match the first £25, I think that people all over Scotland will become involved in learning.

It became obvious from the evidence that the committee took that encouraging people who are not engaged in learning can be a slow process. Scottish Enterprise Grampian, which conducted one of the two pilot studies in Scotland, found that to be the case. As the pilot was rolled out and changed, Scottish Enterprise Grampian learned some of the difficulties in getting people who traditionally are not learners involved. There are specific issues, particularly for women, for whom access to child care is important. The extra £8 million for child care that was announced yesterday will undoubtedly go some way towards assisting them.

As has been said, the bill does not require people to open bank accounts, which were found to be a disincentive in the Grampian pilot both for people who did not have bank accounts—who, quite often, are the people whom the scheme targets—and those who did and did not want another one. The legislation will allow bank accounts at some point for those who want them. That is an instance of Westminster powers being devolved to Scotland for our consideration.

Employees from diverse industries in Grampian are involved in learning. Fish workers—a group that traditionally would not have been much involved in training or skills—are learning about health and safety. We also have offshore chef managers who are working towards a level 3 Scottish vocational qualification in management, using open learning materials during downtime offshore—one of the important things is for people to be able to access learning at any point. People from all sectors and all types of employers in Aberdeen are getting involved in learning accounts. I want that to happen all across Scotland.

The floodgates of memory opened when I heard Frank Pignatelli's name mentioned in the chamber, as he is a former boss of mine. I will try to ignore it and go on as if I had not heard.

A school handbook for staff once said that the only constant in life is change and that our major function is to prepare people for change. That is what we are trying to do today. This is a mom-and-apple-pie debate. We all concur with the motives and the intent, even if the principles are legalistically vague and not all the details have been pencilled in.

I have great delight in mentioning this little extract from the SNP's 1999 manifesto, so that members know that we are all singing from roughly the same hymn sheet.

"We shall review the provision of lifelong learning opportunities and bring forward proposals for initiatives that are more closely targeted to real possibilities and potential than past government schemes, such as the little used and little known Individual Learning Accounts."

We were hoping to make individual learning accounts grow, had we had the opportunity to do so exclusively. Now we are doing it together and nobody can contest the sheer necessity to make education reach out and make people grow. That is the business of all educationalists.

I want to mention one or two points, which have probably been mentioned before. I am a little bit worried at the thought of customer service providers. I suppose that that is because I come from the old-fashioned state education system, which was a service. Anything that has intermediary bodies that take money as part of the function makes me marginally uneasy. I hope that the Scottish university for industry, the customer service provider, the LECs and the Executive will be able to get the lines of communication clear so that it is simple for people outside the system to get in and so that any danger of duplicating service provision is avoided.

I heard the minister speak enthusiastically about having learning centres throughout the country. When we think of learning centres around the country, libraries spring instantly to mind. We had a library in our village, in the other village that I represented and in the half of the other village that I represented as a councillor. They have gone. As a result, fewer people go to libraries—a mobile library is no substitute. Some structural things should be kept going, not as part of this budget or plan, to aid and assist the individual learning account system. Having libraries with terminals that people can access is valuable. If libraries are not there, access is a lot more difficult.

Schools must also address the question of adult literacy. The Daily Record—not a newspaper that has great credibility—had a figure of 1 million illiterate Scots. [Interruption.] I hear someone say "Brave man". Why not? I will say it again. It is not a paper that I always believe. Unless we can address illiteracy at the level of individuals, ILAs will never really get off the ground. We need a change in Scottish culture so that people understand the value of education.

Finally, there is the vexed question of how to capture those who are the least likely to learn. If I say that for a long time I taught people who are least likely to learn, Kenny Gibson will be very angry with me, so I will not say that. I loathe the new name of the institution, learndirect, because it sounds like an insurance company. However, given that that is the name that it has been given, perhaps we can link learndirect to earn-direct, which may motivate some of the people who are least likely to want to learn.

We now move to winding-up speeches. As we are almost five minutes over time, I will have to be particularly tight with timings.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the stage 1 debate on the Education and Training (Scotland) Bill. We must never forget that part of the bill is about individuals and we must focus today's debate on individuals.

The bill's clear policy objective is to empower the Scottish Executive to pay grants to, or on behalf of, individuals towards the cost of their education and training. It is nothing more and nothing less than that. The introduction of individual learning accounts is one of several policies that are being introduced to tackle skills development. It does not stand alone, but is one of many ways in which we are tackling skills development. The Executive is committing £23 million over two years to individual learning accounts, with a target of 100,000 ILAs to be opened by 2002.

Individual learning accounts form a central part of the Executive's vision of stimulating a culture of lifelong learning, empowering individuals to take a greater responsibility for their own learning. That is very important. It is accepted that knowledge is increasingly the engine of growth in all sectors of business. Scotland must develop a truly knowledge-based and knowledge-driven economy. As Allan Wilson said, we must move beyond simple job creation to knowledge creation. Scotland should take the lead by creating and sustaining a competitive advantage through the knowledge, skills and innovation of our own people.

As I said, ILAs are one of several policies that are being introduced to tackle skills development. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee has been considering the bill and has taken evidence from people involved in the pilot projects in Fife and Grampian. Many lessons can be learned from their experiences and will prove invaluable when we flesh out the bill at stage 2.

My experience comes from the further and higher education sectors in Fife. I had first-hand experience of the Fife pilot and the work that was done. Barriers to learning and the question of those people who feel excluded from education and training are often spoken about. Like other speakers, for many years—16—I worked with people who felt excluded from education and training for various reasons. Child care, care of the elderly and caring responsibilities in general were some of the main issues. Travel is another issue, which was addressed by many speakers today.

An issue that we have not discussed is that of people's previous experience of school and education being a large barrier to returning to education. The importance of support and guidance should not be missed. People need support and guidance when they choose to come back into learning or to continue with learning. Many speakers have commented on the cost of administration. However, I would like to emphasise the cost of getting people who feel excluded back into education and training.

We must never lose sight of the fact that if we are going to get those people back into education and training it will cost us more money. I welcome the minister's announcement of £8 million for child care and the pilot that will assess the effectiveness of supported travel and child care. The difficulty of engaging those who feel excluded is recognised in the pilots from which we took evidence. Good practice must be considered and must be built upon.

In the area that I represent, Kirkcaldy, we have had pilots on new ways into work and we have set up a new opportunities shop. Opportunity shops within local areas or other models of opportunity centres offer joined-up policy at local level. Learndirect Scotland, which will be launched later this year, will have a key role in ensuring a strategic approach nationally. I was impressed by the evidence given by the Scottish university for industry on the way that that would harness and add focus to what has already taken place.

Scotland must develop a learning society, where everyone, regardless of background or prior educational achievement, expects to learn and to upgrade their skills throughout their lives.

In consideration of this debate, I was taken back to the words of Lewis Carroll in "Alice in Wonderland", where the debate was whether "I mean what I say" means the same as "I say what I mean". I am in no doubt that the minister means what he says, but in relation to the bill, neither he nor anybody else can possibly know whether he is saying what he means. It is just not here.

I want to echo the remarks that have been made in the debate that the bill as it stands is so deficient as to be meaningless. For the purposes of the Parliament, this is a bad model of legislation. Were it not for the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, the stalwart efforts of its staff and the conscientious efforts of the members, the debate would be meaningless to most people present.

It is desirable that employers, employees and trade unionists are able to understand the bill, to know its content and to make submissions on it, to make qualified, authorised and, it is to be hoped, informed comment, and to improve on and expand the debate. We have all been working in the dark.

For that reason, I hope that, in their substance, the illustrative regulations that were produced for the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and which gave us some kind of torch to look along the path, will reflect closely what the minister ends up with, as the ultimate appendage to the legislation. It is undesirable that those regulations will, effectively, be promulgated during the summer, when there will be no opportunity for scrutiny or review by the chamber or by the committee.

Having said that, on this side of the chamber there is enthusiasm for and a welcome of the proposals. They are extremely important. Going back to Marilyn Livingstone's question earlier, when she rightly inquired about Scots achieving a minimum level of literacy and numeracy, individual learning accounts have a particular relevance to the workplace and to the potential recipients of their benefits.

On clarity of operation, it is difficult to know, in the current context, whether it will exist. I hope that the minister can reassure us. In the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, we sought from Mr Pignatelli, who was there on behalf of the Scottish university for industry, some confirmation that there would not be confusion in the advisory element. As Mrs Ewing asked, who should people go to? Who should they phone? He sought to reassure the committee that he would endeavour to ensure that there was no confusion and no duplication of effort.

However, there are a number of players in the whole operation. There is the recipient, an employer, a provider, and there is, I presume, a facilitator, in the form of SUFI. It is critical, if the scheme is to have credibility, that everybody knows what their role is, that nobody is standing on toes and that the most important person, the recipient, is getting a clear steer as to the path they should follow to achieve whatever they seek to acquire.

The scheme is good and I think it can expand. I hope the measure of its creation will be its ability to sell itself on its credibility. However, it should be monitored and its output should be measured. I hope that there are clear details from the minister on assessing how it operates once it gets under way.

We should not lose sight of the most important aspect of all: the recipients should be able to demonstrate that, by becoming recipients of ILAs, they have managed to improve themselves. Some form of accreditation is necessary to establish and demonstrate that to the wider world.

A perfect four minutes. Brian Adam, you have five minutes to wind up for the SNP.

We have heard some very interesting speeches this afternoon. In particular, I want to commend Allan Wilson for running through almost the complete new Labour lexicon. As I recall, he checked off "new Labour project", "stakeholder", "modernise" and "lifelong learning", and even managed to get in "knowledge-based economy". However, I am afraid that he did not mention "joined-up writing". I think it most appropriate that Allan Wilson made such a speech today in connection with this bill, because, like the bill, all of his terms have a rather ephemeral feel. There is not an awful lot that we can nail down in this legislation.

Does Brian Adam realise how much fun Fergus Ewing will have in the Subordinate Legislation Committee dealing with the sparsity of detail in the bill?

Absolutely. Ian Jenkins raises a serious point. What are we going to do with this bill at stage 2? How can we amend what we cannot see? Are we being asked to supply the detail? I hope that the minister will help by providing a little more substance when we get to stage 2.

At the start of the debate, Fergus Ewing made the very valid point, echoed by the Conservatives, that the fact that the bill does not contain any principles should be considered by the Procedures Committee. Moreover, will the minister assure us that he will use the super-affirmative procedure that was referred to in the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's report on this bill, instead of the procedure that is suggested within the guidance?

Nicol Stephen indicated disagreement.

How disappointing. He will not give us such an assurance. Although the minister is a man whom I greatly trust, one cannot be confident that he will always be the minister, and others might come along in whom the Parliament might not wish to place its trust. I hope that he will reconsider that matter.

As for ILAs, Tavish Scott in particular talked a lot about new technology. However, there is a lot more to learning than knowing how to use computers or other new-fangled devices. The Grampian pilot scheme quite clearly showed that there were other issues to take into account than new technology. For example, butchers and caterers offshore might be made unemployed and need to upgrade their skills. I hope that, in the light of such practical examples, we can return to some of the more traditional skills that need to be upgraded.

No one would object to attempts to improve skills in our society, and ILAs are one way of achieving that aim. However, I am not convinced that the joined-up arrangements are in place for this scheme. I welcome the fact that the learning house concept is being rolled out—another new Labour phrase—all over Scotland. I am familiar with the concept as I was the councillor for the ward in which the first learning house was introduced by Grampian Enterprise Ltd. I note with great pleasure that advice from the pilot schemes has changed the Government's approach on this issue.

The minister has shown a willingness to listen to advice that has been given externally and by the Parliament. I hope that the minister will take that approach for other matters. Concern has been expressed today about barriers to access and I am sure that the minister will address those concerns, if not today, then before we get to the point of dealing with the detail of the bill, if there ever is any detail.

I am conscious that I must be close to my time limit.

You have another minute and a half.

Okay. Fine. Great.

Only if you wish, Mr Adam. I am not pushing you into it.

It will be difficult to target the initiative at the groups that most need the help that it can provide and I hope that a lot of thought will be put into that. A survey showed that 90 per cent of people on the scheme in Glasgow thought that the idea that education should continue was a great idea, but only around 30 per cent said that they were prepared to continue doing it. That figure was only those who were prepared to do it, not those who actually did it.

I am concerned about the proportion of the budget that appears to be going on things other than delivery of the services. I am concerned that 10 per cent is going to the customer service provider—

Order. There is too much noise off. We all know that the acoustics in this hall are not very good. It is almost impossible for me to hear the speaker.

You have 30 seconds, Mr Adam.

It is difficult to justify the number of players. The customer service providers seem to be getting an inordinately high proportion of the funds. The £4 million for non-direct provision of services seems too high as well. It is important that we monitor the situation and I hope that we will have a lot more detail when we get to stage 2.

Although I am not happy about it, we will have to overrun. You have until 4 minutes past 5 to wind up for the Executive, minister.

I will try to be brief.

Fergus Ewing, unusually for him, was gloomy and grudging about the £23 million of new investment in skills and training. The bill is short, but the proposals are clear and there is a lot of supplementary detail that has, as Fergus Ewing knows, been provided to the committee. As Nick Johnston pointed out, a full, glossy document about this is available and we have run schemes to pilot the initiative. I contrast Nick Johnston's comments with those of Fergus Ewing and I welcome the support of the Conservatives. I think that we have the support of the SNP, despite the bleak and, at times, Kafkaesque imagery that its members used. Lewis Carroll was brought in at one stage of the debate, although I thought that we ventured into the realm of Barbara Cartland when Tavish Scott raised the image of Duncan McNeil and Fergus Ewing walking up hand in hand to receive their award.

Nick Johnston asked a lot of good, detailed questions. I do not have time to answer them just now, but we will be able to deal with them at stage 2. Duncan McNeil brought us back to the positive, upbeat and dynamic approach that the debate needed. John Swinney's speech was also constructive. I realise that he is concerned about the tight time scale and I assure him that tight time scales are not liked by ministers either. He has written to Henry McLeish on the issue and we will respond in due course. John Swinney's main point was that we must target those who are least likely to learn. I agree, but I do not think that a quota system would be the right way to ensure that. We have got to do it through marketing and through the involvement of the LECs.

Tavish Scott and others raised the concerns of rural communities over access to these new forms of learning. That is an issue that we are responding to. Barriers to access must be removed. We have got rid of the proposal to have new bank accounts as a compulsory requirement. That led to a huge growth in the number of learning accounts in the Grampian area. We have said that we will consider the issues of travel and child care, but let us be clear: those issues apply to all areas of learning. We want a more consistent and supportive approach to be taken towards those issues, in which regard the £8 million of new funding for further education colleges is welcome and positive news.

We want to enable ship workers to access training—something that Duncan McNeil highlighted. Individual learning accounts must allow access to workplace learning, online learning and other innovative ways of learning. Already there has been innovation in our colleges. For example, Cumbernauld College has launched learndirect Cumbernauld—the word was not liked by all, but the initiative is there.

It is clear that there is considerable support for the general principles of this bill. It will take us closer to the development of, in the words of Allan Wilson, the learning society here in Scotland, which I mentioned in my opening remarks. The grant-making powers in the bill will enable us to introduce learning accounts throughout Scotland, to help many people to overcome the financial barriers to learning. They will help new learners to start out on the road of lifelong learning, and will encourage existing learners to continue to develop their skills. That will be a major step in the dramatic change in attitudes to learning and skills that is vital to the success of Scotland's new knowledge economy.

Learning accounts will empower individuals to take greater responsibility for investing in their learning. They will encourage employers to increase their investment in training and will help smaller companies to invest seriously in their staff and develop their skills. They will help to increase the skill levels of our work force, and will increase motivation and develop potential.

This bill and the regulations in it will give Scottish ministers the powers to ensure that the UK framework of individual learning accounts can continue to evolve to reflect Scottish needs. There are already some key differences between the proposed framework for Scotland and that for the rest of the UK. We intend to monitor closely the introduction and effectiveness of individual learning accounts. If we are failing to reach the key target groups, we will be prepared to make changes. We will consult the main stakeholders and listen to their views, and we will continue to consult the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.

Will the minister give way?

I am about to finish. I am on my final sentence. However, as I have two minutes left according to the clock, I will give way.

If the learning accounts are failing to reach those who are least likely to learn, at what stage will ministers be prepared to reconsider the plans that they have put forward? What mechanisms will be in place to prove to them that they have failed to reach those people?

The simple and obvious answer is: as soon as possible. We want to monitor to ensure that local marketing reaches the target groups. As soon as we see problems, we will take action. The huge growth in the uptake of individual learning accounts that took place in the Grampian region—the figure was stuck at around 100, but has now reached more than 2,000—gives us considerable confidence for the future.

On that note, I shall finish. That is a positive, practical example from a pilot scheme. I invite all members, including Fergus Ewing, to support the motion agreeing to the general principles of the bill.