Scottish University for Industry
The next item of business is the debate on motion S1M-227 in the name of Nicol Stephen, and on the amendment to that motion, on the Scottish university for industry.
Yesterday, the Scottish Executive published its document, "Scottish University for Industry: The Shortest Route to Learning"—[Interruption.]
Order. Just a moment, Mr Stephen. Would members who are leaving please do so quietly and without conversation? That applies to the First Minister as well as to everybody else in the corner of the chamber.
Please carry on, Mr Stephen.
Thank you. The document presents our vision for the Scottish university for industry and gives a progress report on its development. The Executive is committed to the creation of a culture of lifelong learning. At the hub of our plans is the establishment in 2000 of the Scottish university for industry.
Scotland's future competitiveness will be governed by our ability to innovate and to use new skills to maximise the potential of new technology. The development of a knowledge-driven economy requires a shift in our mindset, greater receptiveness to new methods, and flair, determination and commitment to serve ever- changing customer demands. A passion for upgrading skills and knowledge will create the economic benefits for Scotland that we all want.
Rapid social and economic change is having profound consequences. The job for life is disappearing, career patterns are becoming more fluid and individuals are having to take responsibility for their own learning. People need to develop their capabilities throughout their working lives to stay in employment and to maximise earning potential.
The Scottish UFI is a radical new initiative that aims to promote a step change, a real transformation, in our drive to create a culture of lifelong learning. It is one of the key lifelong learning commitments in "Making it work together: A programme for government". It will connect people and businesses that want to improve their skills and training with the organisations that can offer them the learning that they need. It is about providing the right training, in the right place, at the right time and at the right cost.
The first key objective of the Scottish UFI is to encourage more people, not only those with existing degrees or diplomas, but, perhaps especially, those with no formal qualifications, to carry on learning and gaining new skills throughout their lives.
I listened with great interest to the minister's comments about the publication that was issued yesterday. I took the trouble of trying to access the document as set out on the internet. I was surprised that, when I accessed the web address given in the document, I got a page saying:
"This is the default page for a website that has not yet been uploaded".
I now understand that that will not be done for another week. Does the minister think that it is a bit unusual for the Government to launch a document that raises expectations among a wider audience, encouraging people to use new technology to access information, when those who do so find that there is nothing there for them to find?
That is a good example of the need for skills development and for encouraging greater use of the new technology—which I will come to. I will try to ensure that the document is available on the website as soon as possible, if it is not already.
The Scottish UFI will encourage demand for learning. It will increase the number of people who participate in learning, and will play an important role in boosting competitiveness and combating social exclusion. There will be a major marketing campaign, advertisements, a freephone helpline number, and a sophisticated—by the time it is launched—website with all the information contained on it.
The Scottish UFI will not provide any training or education itself. In that sense, it will not be a university. To visualise it better, members should consider it as a broker or gateway that will explain to people the learning that is available. It will explain particular qualifications, arrange for people to obtain advice on their choice of learning and put people in touch with a learning provider.
The Scottish UFI will have a core staff of around five directors and around 15 to 20 employees. It will contract out provision of many of its services, such as the helpline, website and accredited learning centres. It will also provide a vital database of all existing training provision, which will be continually amended and updated.
That brings me to the second objective—a very important one—of the university for industry. Over time, we must amend, update and radically change the shape and structure of training and lifelong learning in Scotland. Learning in the future will be very different from that in the past. It will consist not simply of learning from existing conventional courses. That is one reason why the Scottish UFI will commission new, often web- based materials and courses, where gaps in provision exist.
Providers will be encouraged to provide learning in new ways, and to make use of the latest IT developments in interactive materials, for example. Materials will also be commissioned in the light of information on the skills needs specified by employers, by the national training organisations and by learners.
The Scottish UFI development team, based in Scottish Enterprise, is working hard to ensure a successful launch in autumn 2000. Development work is continuing to set in place the information and communication technology systems that the Scottish UFI will need. It is about to be established as a company limited by guarantee with charitable status.
Yesterday, the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Henry McLeish, announced the appointment of Frank Pignatelli as Scottish UFI chief executive. Recruitment of the other executive directors is at an advanced stage. A chairman and board will be appointed early in the new year, and we wish Mr Pignatelli and his team well.
The name Scottish university for industry is only a working title for the concept. Work is under way to develop a brand name that will appeal to the public and attract as many people as possible into learning. The name will almost certainly change. The Scottish UFI will provide a one-stop shop to connect individuals and organisations to providers of the learning they need in the way that suits them best: by the Scottish UFI freephone helpline, through the website, or locally, face to face, at part of the network of accredited learning centres. The Scottish UFI will not own or run learning centres itself; it will accredit a network operated by a wide range of providers. At the moment, there are around 400 learning centres in Scotland. Our target is to create more than 1,000 such centres throughout the length and breadth of Scotland.
Henry McLeish recently visited East End Park, Dunfermline Athletic's football ground, where he launched the up-for-learning project. That is one of 17 European Union projects that are funded under objective 4. Those new initiatives have been key in assisting the work of the Scottish UFI development team. The aim is to establish learning centres in non-traditional locations, such as high streets, business parks, libraries, supermarkets and even football clubs.
I am keen for Scottish UFI accredited learning centres to develop in deprived and rural areas. A
good example from the north-east started as a single project in a council house on the Middlefield estate—the Middlefield learning house—and has now developed in partnership with similar projects in two other deprived areas of Aberdeen. It has created two further learning houses in rural areas in Huntly and Fraserburgh. The concept is that adults and children from deprived backgrounds learn best together in those learning houses. Demand for that form of learning has so far outstripped supply that a booking system is needed in those houses. Let nobody here say that there is not enthusiasm and real demand for learning—not only about basic literacy and numeracy skills, but about the internet and new technologies—in deprived, disadvantaged and excluded areas.
Remoteness can be another barrier to learning. Six months ago, Lews Castle College opened a learning centre on Barra. Already, more than 50 people have enrolled, out of a population of 1,200. Two people have already signed up for university degrees. We expect the Scottish UFI to build and expand on the network of all kinds of learning centres throughout the country.
I have a question on the subject of Lews Castle College. Does Nicol Stephen agree that, if primary and secondary funding is accepted to be one-and-a-half times as much in the Highlands and Islands, the university funding for Lews Castle College probably should be the same amount extra as well? That college considers itself to be some 25 per cent underfunded anyway. Will Nicol Stephen address that, to determine whether the college could receive extra funding in recognition of its remoteness?
Mr McGrigor's point about remoteness and the need for greater investment in rural areas is the point that I was trying to make. I agree with the main thrust of that point. However, four new learning centres have been opened by the college, of this nature, in the past year. Progress is being made, but we need to do more.
The Scottish UFI will pay particular attention to the needs of small businesses. In Scotland, more than 800,000 people work for organisations that have fewer than 50 employees, and about two thirds of them work for organisations that have fewer than 10 employees. Small businesses often lack the funds and management time to focus on training. Their needs can differ greatly from those of big business. The Scottish UFI will also enable larger organisations to expand on the learning options that they offer their employees, and will encourage them to consider making available their workplace training facilities outside normal working hours—not only to families of their employees, but to those who are out of work, the self-employed and employees of smaller organisations.
A great deal has still to be done before we launch the Scottish university for industry. The target date is next autumn. We are investing £16 million in the development of the Scottish UFI over this year and the next two years.
The minister is now winding up. He has overrun by a minute, anyway.
That is a major investment, but we believe that it is the only way in which we can bring about the expansion and development of, and the passion and enthusiasm for, education and training that will be vital if Scotland is to seize the potential of the knowledge economy. The creation of a genuine culture of lifelong learning will transform Scotland. That is why the Scottish university for industry is vital.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the publication on 27 October of The Shortest Route to Learning, the Scottish Executive's progress report on the development of the Scottish University for Industry and supports the creation of the Scottish University for Industry which will enable people to access learning opportunities and learn throughout life on their own terms, so increasing individual employability and economic competitiveness.
I give a broad welcome to the concept of the Scottish university for industry. The Scottish National party is committed to the principle of widening access to education and learning. What we most want from this debate, and from the work of the Scottish university for industry, is the translation of the high hopes that are contained in this document into some practical action on the ground in our communities.
I acknowledge and welcome the support that has been given to assist student access, which was referred to in the partnership document and again in yesterday's publication. We must recognise, however, that the most important issue with which we are still wrestling is the need to tackle the perception of individuals in our community that access to education is expensive. Although the Government has put measures in place to assist people in cases of hardship, the agenda that is being pursued by the Cubie committee is of vital importance in breaking down perceptions that education may be off-limits to some people in our community because of the costs associated with it.
The SNP supports the use of technology to access learning, particularly for rural areas. We
want to ensure that the measures that the Government proposes in this document—and the many commitments that have been made to expanding the use of technology in the learning process—can be delivered by a cohesive network within Scotland. There are many initiatives under way at the moment and we have genuine concerns that the complexity of initiatives in terms of technological development is not as co-ordinated as it should be. As we go down the route of trying to build a truly national grid for learning in Scotland, I want the Government to take the lead in that process to ensure that all the component initiatives stick together. We are concerned that those issues are not to the fore at present.
I give a warm welcome to the concept of locating learning centres in what the minister called nontraditional locations—convenient locations. There is an outreach centre of Perth college in Atholl Road in my constituency. It is part of the University of the Highlands and Islands project and it is easily accessible to my constituents. I compliment the venture that Scottish Power has established and that I have been invited to visit. I intend to take up that invitation to see how, in a workplace environment, that has been done effectively.
I am sure that there are many people who have attended Dunfermline Athletic matches who will welcome the opportunity of somewhere else to go, rather than witnessing the horror of what goes on in the football park.
I am sure that John did not mean to take Dunfermline Athletic's name in vain in the way that he did. There are many of us present who are avid supporters of Dunfermline Athletic. [Laughter.] Please would he withdraw that comment.
I have made the foolish mistake of treading over the chief whip. I did not, however, specify whether I was referring to home or away supporters. [Laughter.]
On a more serious note, I wish to point out the way in which this matter has been brought before Parliament. We have a glossy brochure here containing an interesting definition from the minister, Mr McLeish. I would have loved to see him explain at his press conference yesterday that he is determined to make it cool to learn. I am sure that he would have conveyed that point with great colour.
He was involved in a press launch at Dunfermline Athletic yesterday, but he is not here today to put forward the arguments for the Scottish university for industry. Mrs Godman is here today, and some time ago she asked questions about the initiative to set up the Scottish university for industry. She asked specific questions about when the chief executive and the board would be appointed. Parliament has not had the courtesy of having that information conveyed to it first. It is important that ministers respect the bringing of announcements to Parliament to ensure that it is properly advised, not through the media, as continually happens.
I give a warm welcome to Frank Pignatelli's appointment. He has a distinguished record in education and learning and I am quite sure that he will lead this initiative with energy and dynamism.
In the time that remains, there are four key points that I want to make which set out the arguments for our amendment. The first point arises from the demand for learning. The material that we have seen on the university project identifies, correctly, that we must be more responsive to the demands for learning within our community than to the provision of courses that are made available by the institutions and the colleges. That is an important point of principle, but it is not clear to me how it will be changed by the Scottish university for industry concept.
The minister said that the university will act as a broker to draw together information on learning and that it will not be a provider but will encourage new provision to emerge. That seems to be the key point of difference that the initiative must make; it must show how a strategy can be pursued successfully that will change the pattern of availability of learning at a local and community level. Nothing in the debate so far, or in the material that I have read, gives me confidence that there is a great deal of substance or knowledge on how that can be done. More learning centres in more accessible locations are fine, but how will they be staffed and run? I have not yet heard an explanation of how they will offer courses that meet tailored individual requirements.
My second point relates to the concept of added value. If the initiative is to be successful, it must add value to the existing learning networks in Scotland. I suspect from what I have read in the documents that this is a repackaging or remarketing of the availability of existing provision. If that is not the case, I hope the ministers will make it clear today how the new and different provision will emerge. I detect high expectations within the community about what the initiative will deliver and how the content of the learning experience for individuals will be delivered.
My third point concerns funding. I never grudge money that is added to public expenditure in Scotland, but a large proportion of the development expenditure that underpins the initiative comes from the national lottery new opportunities fund, a UK-determined programme that is outwith direct ministerial or Scottish control. I seek assurances from ministers that the £23 million commitment from that fund that has been
mentioned is absolutely secure.
Another important point on funding is that securing capital expenditure is no problem in many cases, largely because of the availability of lottery funding. We all experience that in our constituencies on a range of different projects. However, revenue funding is critical. I want to know from ministers the implications for revenue streams to guarantee that services can continue to be provided to local communities and whether the resource that is required for those revenue costs is leveraged out of existing hard-pressed further education budgets. As we all know, in all our communities those budgets are under much stress.
The Presiding Officer has indicated that I should wind up, so I will make my last point on our amendment. In the programme for government document, the Government states:
"We will establish the Scottish University for Industry in the year 2000."
I warmly support that target and am sure that the Government will achieve it, but I would like to know a little more about what impact the Government thinks that measure will have on the Scottish economy and learning environment. In the same document, the Government states that by 2002 it
"will ensure that more part-time students and students from low income families have access to further and higher education".
I would like to know how many more and how that will be achieved. Performance measurements will have to be in place if we are to know whether the expenditure of public resources has been effective.
Mr Stephen said that much had to be done on the Scottish university for industry project. I am glad he said that, because I must express concern that progress has not been quite as swift as we might have hoped. I detected that that concern was at the root of Mrs Godman's question to Parliament a few weeks ago, although I do not want to put words into her mouth. We need a clear strategy, soon, to deliver the expectations that the Government has raised.
I move amendment S1M-227.1 to motion S1M-227, to insert at end,
"and requires that the project to establish a Scottish University for Industry must clearly establish that value is being added by the project to existing provision and that adequate performance measurement be undertaken to enable the Parliament to judge the effectiveness of this initiative."
I welcome the opportunity to respond to the minister's statement today. I trust it will not have escaped his notice that the Conservatives have not sought to amend his motion. We have some serious reservations, on which we would like his reassurance, and after the Executive's winding-up speech we hope to be able to support the motion. In our opinion, the SNP amendment strengthens the motion; we will therefore support it. I hope that the minister will see fit to accept the amendment and establish one of those rare occasions when we achieve consensus after a serious debate.
It is the Executive's intention, in the spirit of consensus in which Mr Monteith's remarks were made, to accept Mr Swinney's amendment, which reinforces the main motion. The amendment is constructive, as Mr Swinney's remarks have reinforced.
I am glad to hear that. The concept of a university for industry is not driven so much by ideology as by technology. For that reason, we believe that it should be given every chance to succeed. I am well aware that the university for industry was Gordon Brown's baby. I wish the initiative more success than Harold Wilson's much-vaunted, but ultimately unsuccessful, dalliance with trying to harness the white heat of technology.
A recent survey published in the Edinburgh Evening News showed that, although the vast majority of adults agreed that lifelong learning was highly desirable, less than 20 per cent of them would go back to a formal education course. Therefore, it is important that the Scottish university for industry, as a new educational broker, seeks to provide easy, informal access to education. If it does that, it must be given our support.
As the minister has admitted, and as John Swinney has pointed out, there is a great deal to be done. The initiative was launched two years ago, relaunched yesterday with the publication of the report and will no doubt be launched again in autumn next year—that is not so much the shortest route to learning as the longest. I have spoken to many academics who have a rather jaundiced view of the university for industry. It has become almost a subject of derision. That must be changed if the university is not only to be successful with providers, but to have credibility with users of the service.
Many academics, looking ahead, see the creation of a university that utilises artificial intelligence as a means of teaching—which may in the end be what is connected with a service such as the Scottish university for industry—as a cuckoo in their nest. That would inevitably be a threat to lecturers, who could see their positions replaced by technicians. Such changes will
undoubtedly open up new opportunities for learning, but as the rate of technological change increases exponentially, the Scottish Executive would be mistaken if it thought that it could plan a strategy that keeps up with such changes.
The document that was launched yesterday is typical of new Labour. It seems to have been written to try to convince us that something is being done, rather than to say what is being done. Particular emphasis is placed on the case studies, although I am not sure that they give a particularly clear indication that the Scottish Executive knows what business is about. The relationship between business and the Scottish university for industry will be crucial, which is a point that some of my colleagues will touch on later.
One case study features Bill Million—clever name that. The document says:
"Bill Million, MD of SubCo Ltd, has just read an article on SufI in Scottish Business Insider. At the same time, his local Chamber of Commerce has sent him an extract from a report highlighting the damagingly low-level of internet use by Scottish SMEs."
Bill Million decides that he needs to do something about the situation. He gets in touch with SUFI and everything is solved. However, surely no managing director with a name like Bill Million would have got where he is without knowing what to do. He would know to contact his local enterprise company or chamber of commerce to find out how to resolve the situation. We therefore need to have a clearer idea of what the Scottish university for industry will do for industry and encourage industry to come on board. As the document points out, the institution even needs a permanent name, because it is not about industry and it is not a university, as it covers far more than higher education. All that can be said at present is that it is Scottish.
The document tells us why Scotland needs a university for industry and the minister will gather that the Conservative members agree that Scotland needs such an institution. However, the document does not tell us why we should have a separate university for industry from the one for the rest of the UK. Indeed, while there are many areas where it is advantageous for Scotland to develop new institutions, there can also be times when we should seek to share the development of a new project and reap benefits in that way. I am yet to be convinced that a technologically driven initiative such as the university for industry should be established separately in Scotland from the rest of the UK.
On that point, does Mr Monteith agree that we need a separate Scottish university for industry in order to maintain our separate Scottish national vocational qualifications and so on? If we went for a UK- driven system, we would send folk off to do qualifications that are not relevant to the geographical area in which they live.
Brian Monteith, you have one minute.
I thank Fiona McLeod for that point, which I was just coming to.
We have different institutions that work differently and that have different qualifications, which would need to be protected. Guidance would need to be issued—it is supposed to exist in the system. I have no fears on that point, although it is important that our institutions are able to benefit from the wider access that they could give to the rest of the UK and I hope that arrangements might be put in place for them to be able to do that still. We should not forget that some 25,000 students from England already attend higher education establishments in Scotland, bringing more than £100 million of revenue to those institutions. It would be good if we could open up more work for our institutions.
It is interesting that the English University for Industry has already appointed its chief executive. It has even appointed an advertising agency and it is well down the road to introducing its website. Is there a clear idea of why we are establishing a separate body? If so, is it costing us more? Are our students losing out? Will we launch at the same time? Will we lose any market share, given that these institutions can be accessed through the internet? Will potential students face different charges, if charges are introduced?
Please come to a close.
Certainly. The original intention was that these centres should be stationed not just in colleges, universities and schools. The minister mentioned the Dunfermline project—I think that being relegated is taking widening access a little too seriously. However, it is not clear whether the Scottish university for industry has any control over projects such as the pilot study in Dunfermline or whether it is simply working in partnership with that project. Pilot studies in England are already proving to be beneficial.
My colleagues have many more questions for the minister, particularly in relation to industry, enterprise companies and the establishment of SUFI. I suggest that he sharpen his pencil as well as his wits.
Overruns by opening speakers have cost one member a chance to participate in this debate. I ask members to keep speeches strictly to four minutes from now on and their eyes on the countdown clock.
I welcome the minister's agreement to accept Mr Swinney's amendment, in which he made some valid points about the need to monitor closely performance of the Scottish university for industry.
I broadly welcome the proposals for this new organisation, which is a worthwhile initiative that attempts to link the needs of business and industry to the education and training network. In this day and age, that is very important. It will create a single gateway for anyone who wishes to access lifelong learning.
The initiative should enable a picture to be built up of the demand from industry and from individuals seeking new skills. By establishing demand, the university should be able to show where skills gaps and gaps in course provision are. It should also establish where there is overlap or under-use of current provision. Its role is to promote and stimulate the demand for lifelong learning and increase access to it.
Good ideas need to be translated into action and there are a number of issues that need to be addressed, some of them raised by previous speakers. One that was mentioned by John Swinney is finance: £15 million has been earmarked for start-up costs but there will be revenue costs thereafter, possibly of around half a million a year. How is that money going to be raised? Who will supply the revenue funding after the three years—the students, industry, the providers, the Scottish Executive?
I am glad that the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning referred to that sector in his opening remarks. It is vital that the small business community buys into the concept if the lifelong learning agenda is to succeed because 98.8 per cent of all businesses in Scotland employ fewer than 50 people and small businesses employ nearly half of the Scottish work force. A recent Scottish Enterprise survey showed that 80 per cent of small businesses recognise the need to invest in training but 42 per cent said that lack of information on how to access that training was a stumbling block. I hope that the university for industry will overcome that perceived problem.
Another perceived hurdle—
Very briefly please.
—was the need for people to be away from the business for days at a time, travelling to attend courses. The university for industry must reassure the small business community that it will come up with innovative and workable methods to make training flexible and accessible. Above all, it must convince small businesses that it is profitable to invest in people.
That is four minutes so—
A couple of sentences—
No, I am sticking firmly to four minutes; otherwise, other members will not be able to speak. I hope you understand that.
It was only two days ago that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee was told that although Scotland compared favourably with foreign competitors in education qualifications—for example, the number of graduates—we compare very poorly in employee training and continuing to maintain the skill level of the work force. It is essential in today's economic climate that not only those seeking to enter the work force but those currently in work have the opportunity to train, whether to gain new skills or simply to stay abreast of developments.
In some types of work the idea of training and retraining throughout a working life has been accepted for some time—science and medicine are examples. In my own experience as an information technology professional, continuing to train is necessary to stay abreast of the ever- increasing rate of change. The technological revolution in telecommunications and information technology is affecting larger and larger numbers of people. Every day we hear more about the internet and the world wide web; for example, the expansion of retailing via the internet for supermarket shopping or purchasing holidays. It is vital that Scotland is able to grasp the opportunities offered by that. The key will be a well-educated and well-trained work force able to understand, apply and develop the technologies.
We know that, increasingly, the knowledge that is in people's heads will add to the value of businesses. For those reasons, the publication today of the Scottish Executive's document on the Scottish university for industry can only be welcomed, and it is undoubtedly a step in the right direction of increasing the skill level of the Scottish work force. The university will give all employers and employees a single source from which to identify suitable training and training providers, making that task more straightforward.
Today's labour market has changed considerably. The days of people going in to one job and retiring 40 years later have gone for ever. Today, people are likely to have an average of eight different jobs during their working lives. The new jobs that people take may be in completely
different sectors of the employment market, and require different skill sets. Lifelong learning is not an optional extra: it is essential. A university for industry will be the first stop for many people, and it will be essential. The university for industry and individual learning accounts will encourage people and allow them to take control of their training and professional development. It is essential that employees increasingly have a say in, and control of, their training requirements: it cannot all be left to employers.
The university will be in the best position to perform a number of other tasks, such as gathering labour market information and helping to identify skill shortages. I was particularly happy to hear the minister refer to the learning house in Middlefield. That is an innovative project, and it is an excellent example of the kind of modern learning that should be provided through the university for industry. The importance of establishing the university cannot be overstated. It is likely to be an institution that we will all come in to contact with during our working lives. It will allow Scotland's work force to compete with the best, and give our economy the best possible future.
It must be a feature of age that ministers, like policemen, look younger every day.
On behalf of the SNP, I thank the ministerial team for accepting the amendment. The gentlemen of the press should note that this is the second day in a row that an amendment has been accepted. That tells us something about consensus politics.
I have two points to make. First, the amendment is important. I am glad that it has been accepted, as there must be an element of scepticism about initiatives that are proposed in the manifestos of political parties—I speak as a former campaign director. It is important that initiatives that are to be funded from the public purse are carefully scrutinised.
Over the years in training and education, we have had a large number of wizard wheezes— particularly the Manpower Services Commission from the Tories—which crumbled like dust when they were closely examined. This initiative is far too important for us to allow that to happen, so the most rigorous criteria must be applied in assessing the work of the university for industry. I look forward to that rigorous approach, so that we can ensure that the university adds value.
My natural scepticism was heightened a little yesterday when I read the document "Scottish University for Industry". It takes spin into the realms of fiction and kailyard fantasy—a cultural development that we should probably welcome. The remarkable stories about fictional individuals that are contained in the document are gripping. I was particularly attracted to the story on page 12 about June Russell. I am of a certain age, and I thought that it might be Jane Russell, but it is not. Some care needs to be taken over presenting the information on such an important development. There might be an advantage in taking a soap- opera approach when selling the university— [Interruption.] Is Alasdair Morrison indicating that he wrote the document? I did not write it, if that was what he is trying to indicate.
It might be useful to take the soap-opera approach when selling the university to students and others, but we would have liked something more rigorous when selling it to Scotland and this Parliament.
My second point is that this is an exciting and innovative project. It is a new way of thinking about connecting people to the needs of a changing market and a changing society. It is a new way of bringing people forward, of doing what education does by definition, which is to draw people out.
There must be new thinking in terms of where the university is based and how it operates. I welcome the appointment of Frank Pignatelli. One of the factors that distinguished Frank Pignatelli's reign as director of education in Strathclyde was a keen concern for the rural areas. We now have an opportunity in Scotland to establish the headquarters of the university for industry—it is not learning centred in the sense that pupils and students have to attend the venue—at the Crichton campus in Dumfries.
Crichton College has an enormously innovative approach to education. I had the honour to give the inaugural lecture at the new college some weeks ago. I have visited the campus twice and I think that it is a most exciting place. Various colleges and universities are coming together to look at education in a new way. There are facilities and buildings there. I know that the Crichton Development Company Ltd and Dumfries and Galloway Council have been in touch with the civil servants in the relevant department. I hope that Mr Pignatelli, the board and others, will go to the college.
Will Mr Russell give way?
If I take the intervention, will I be allowed to get my last sentence in?
If you can do so inside 20 seconds.
Does Mr Russell agree that if he had a fiver for every time that George Lyon, and
some other Liberals, had said that they would abolish tuition fees, we could easily afford to build a university?
I am never averse to being rude to George Lyon, but on this occasion it would be gratuitous. want to be certain that the university for industry has the best location and I think that Crichton College would be best. I ask the minister to give a commitment to visit the college and talk to people there, because I think that it is the right place for the university to be based.
The merits of establishing a Scottish university for industry are not in doubt. We all agree that we live and work in an ever-changing global economy. We have rejected the low-pay, low-productivity sweat-shop vision of the Tories in favour of a high-value knowledge economy. There is broad agreement and common ground between employers and the work force that we must move on.
Why is it, as Elaine Thomson said, that access to in-company training in Scotland compares badly to that in the rest of the UK and internationally? Why do substantial amounts of money that are spent pre-employment stop when someone starts their first job? It is a sad fact that access to training in Scotland is a lottery. It depends on which company someone works for and where they live. Is it any wonder that skill shortages are starting to appear in vital sectors of the economy?
Here is some information for Mr Monteith, who, unfortunately, has now left the chamber. Only a third of the 300 exporters in Renfrewshire do business on the internet. That is frightening. Of that 300, only two have a multilingual facility. That gives us an idea of the scale of the problems that we face. The success of any company increasingly depends on the quality of its human resources in a world in which, in many ways, people create their own job security—if they are not learning, they are not earning. Why is it that we must convince employees and employers to invest and participate in good-quality, work-based education and training?
Will Mr McNeil give way?
Be brief please, as I have not got much time.
On Mr McNeil's point about exporters, a large proportion of small companies in Scotland are disengaged from the exporting process. They are not in contact with the agencies involved in the exporting sector, so they are not encouraged to export. Is there not a similar danger—which should be avoided—in the Scottish university for industry project that the initiative will fail to touch those small companies? Special efforts should be made to ensure that small businesses are incorporated into the thinking behind this venture.
I have sympathy with that point and I will mention some of those issues in my speech.
That is the negative side of this matter. Many good initiatives are taking place. From a previous life, I am well aware of the successes of the partnership agreements in the whisky industry, which have training, education and personal development initiatives at their core. The workplace learning centres and the grants for employees provide unskilled and semi-skilled workers with opportunities to escape the dead- end, repetitive work that they are asked to do. The centres allow them to increase their earnings and their job satisfaction. For employers, there is the reward of increased commitment from the work force, increased productivity, improved quality, and success and growth in place of demoralisation and decline.
Recently, there was a very important initiative in my constituency. IBM, in partnership with others, is tackling the skills gap. It is a partnership for action. Young people can access IBM, a world- class company. The initiative focuses on information technology and language skills.
I have three wishes—
Will you wind up, please.
I will finish there. I am sorry that I let Mr Swinney intervene.
I hope that I can finish as eloquently as Mr McNeil.
Like my colleagues, I welcome the main strands of this initiative, while not being entirely sure what I am welcoming. To me, the whole project seems rather woolly and unfocused, but that could be because of my lack of skills—I find it very difficult to wade through waffle.
Like my colleagues, I have spoken to academics, who have made the point that this is not a university and that it has little to do with industry. I have spoken to industrialists, who express either bewilderment or indifference. The Scottish Council of National Training Organisations, the national training organisations' umbrella body, says in a paper submitted to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee:
"The Scottish University for Industry has the potential to
give the lead in localised delivery systems, although there seems some danger that it might be restricted to being a telephone help-line to a national database."
I would like the minister to tell us who in industry he has consulted on this project and what form that consultation took. Might we now examine the responses from business and industry? The minister might also take the trouble to explain why the development team included not one person from business or industry. Instead, the usual suspects have been hovering around to see how they can hoover up any available funding. Apparently, the development team consulted 70 organisations, but only about a dozen have any links with the world of business.
The published information makes it clear that SUFI is intended to become self-financing after three years. If that is the case, why is so much of its content based on higher and further education courses and not on industry suppliers of education, even though the latter was indicated as one of SUFI's aims?
The SUFI website has a discussion page, on which most of the questions have received answers. One question that has not been answered concerns the possible involvement of private education.
Other questions present themselves. Guidance for bids for learning centres has yet to be issued and a guide for the production of SUFI material will not be issued until later in the year. That was supposed to set a house style. Surely providers need that now, so that they can set up courses early.
My other concern is that the university for industry in England has set indicative targets of
2.5 million people accessing information services and 600,000 people being involved in programmes by 2002. No such targets seem to have been publicly released for SUFI. The following have all to be finalised: membership plans; the information and communications technology contract; the production of a corporate plan; and how SUFI will link with other learning centres and the national grid for learning.
I have some specific questions. How will we avoid the "second class" epithet that has been attached for 20 years to institutions such as the Open University? How does the Executive hope to break down academic snobbery about this project? How will the validation of life experience be undertaken, and how will we avoid the diploma disease? I was interested to see in the document a reference to community education. My wife works in community education and has very little information on the Scottish university for industry. The minister may want to take up that point.
I am interested in how inquiries will be followed up, so that we can see how people take up the opportunities that are on offer. I am particularly interested in whether the outcomes will be acceptable to business.
If those questions are answered to the satisfaction of the business community—
Will you begin to wind up, please.
I will.
We need assurances that this initiative will lead to greater access to skill enhancement for people in small and medium enterprises. If it turns out to be merely another of the myriad organisations feeding from the educational trough at the taxpayer's expense, it will quickly—and deservedly—die a death.
As the minister has said, the Scottish university for industry will be a broker between individuals and organisations rather than a provider. As such, it will have an important role to play in widening access to learning and in addressing the difficulties that are experienced by adult learners living in remote areas who want to study courses relevant to their needs and their employment aspirations.
Mature students with work and family commitments need flexible, usually part-time, provision that they can fit around other obligations. They may have additional needs. For example, some potential adult learners have had negative experiences of education in the school system and may have little confidence in their ability to learn. Community education services in local authorities have an important role to play in enabling those adults to tackle their personal development needs. I was pleased that the document said that councils have been asked to prioritise that issue, although, from what Mr Johnston says, perhaps more information is needed.
Methods of teaching and learning are changing rapidly with developments in information and communications technology. Many education providers are already taking advantage of those developments to deliver courses to students in remote locations. The Open University has used distance teaching and learning throughout Scotland for a long time. During my time with the Open University, I taught chemistry to students living from Stranraer to Shetland without—perhaps unfortunately—anybody being required to travel.
Last week, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee enjoyed a presentation—I certainly enjoyed it, anyway—from the principal of the
University of the Highlands and Islands. He demonstrated how that institution intended to use new technology and short-break courses at centres of excellence to deliver to students from remote areas a wide range of courses, including, interestingly, engineering and applied sciences.
Exciting developments are taking place in Dumfries, where the Crichton College of the University of Glasgow has just taken in its first cohort of students. I can miss out the next section of my speech, as Mike Russell has said many of the things that I wanted to say. He will not be surprised to learn that I have written to the newly appointed chief executive of the Scottish university for industry, Mr Frank Pignatelli, whom I know from a previous life, to offer him my congratulations and to outline the sterling qualities of that site for that purpose.
The Scottish university for industry must be more than a telephone or e-mail helpline or a database account provision. I agree with what Mr Swinney said on that issue: it must be a vehicle for a change in attitudes to learning and a real opportunity for Scots, wherever they live and whatever they have or have not achieved in other learning environments, to access the education that they want and need. It must also be a mechanism for Scottish industries to access training for their employees to ensure that they benefit from a skilled and confident work force.
Education is and will remain the powerhouse of the Scottish economy. I welcome the publication of the document, although, like some other members, I am slightly confused by its style, particularly the inclusion of a picture of a young gentleman's posterior on page 16. Perhaps I am a little old fashioned.
In line with the spirit of the words on the first page of the document, I would like to impress upon Parliament the fact that, if Scotland is to become a knowledge-driven economy in the next century, it must first become a knowledge-driven society. I welcome the Scottish university for industry development if it will assist in contributing to that aim through the development of lifelong learning in Scotland.
I welcome the commitment to use a wide and innovative range of locations—such as libraries, community centres and colleges—as learning centres. However, I remind the Executive that we already have almost 3,000 learning centres in Scotland. They are called schools and they are in the heart of our communities.
My concern is increasing that, as various departments and individuals in the Executive hurtle towards the knowledge economy finishing tape, there is, as John Swinney said, a lack of a strategic approach. If SUFI is to enable our communities to participate in, and benefit from, lifelong learning, it needs to be integrated into a coherent strategy. That means that we need an integrated information strategy for Scotland.
As a first step, I suggest that we require a national audit on the preparedness of our telecommunications infrastructure for SUFI and the plethora of other initiatives. Are there still pockets of communities without access to digitised telephone exchanges? If so, the vision of lifelong learning being accessed through technology is little more than a pipe dream.
As well as facilitating a knowledge-driven society, SUFI should be structured so that it provides an opportunity to manage knowledge, be it that of an individual, a community or society as a whole. One way of achieving that is by creating an electronic learning environment that is accessible by everyone and from everywhere. Coherence and integration are essential if we are to ensure that any person can have access to information, no matter what their social or economic circumstances are or where they live.
In providing that access, we must ensure that the right tools are used. The search engines that are employed will be one of the most important tools in the technological environment of SUFI. If we had an integrated information strategy for Scotland, specifications in those technological areas would be clear, and we would not have to look at them individually for each initiative.
Copyright is another area where co-ordination and clear guidance are required. That is a complex legal issue, which sometimes baffles even the professionals—I admit that having been one myself. The issue is likely to become more complex, but it has to be considered now, in an integrated fashion. Recently, the Copyright Licensing Agency issued the first digitisation licences, but only to higher education institutions. We must find ways of licensing material in both print and electronic formats if we are to facilitate the widest possible access to information without prohibitive costs. That issue has a bearing on SUFI's ability to commission learning materials.
There should be a national strategy that not only assembles the policy framework to manage the development of our information-intensive society, but co-ordinates access, infrastructure and the content of the knowledge economy and society's initiatives. To deliver that strategy, there should be a national body to oversee the creation of our knowledge society. If SUFI is to succeed—and thank goodness the name is being changed; RIP SUFI—in meeting people's aspirations and raising their expectations of what learning can do for
them, it must be an integral part of an integrated approach to delivering a knowledge-driven society and economy.
I hope that this document is not just another glossy contribution to the imminent information gridlock that Scotland faces.
I believe that the Scottish university for industry has five key aims: to provide the people of Scotland with information, advice and guidance on learning opportunities; to analyse the needs of the market and the client groups that will contact the university; to commission new learning materials where gaps in provision are identified; to ensure the availability of high-quality learning programmes; and to assure the quality of products and services provided by the university brokers or commissions.
All those aims are admirable, although it may be worth commenting on the tension between the university's role as a broker and its mission to provide information, advice and guidance and to assure the quality of products and services. If the university is to deliver those worthwhile objectives rather than just broker them, the Scottish Executive should perhaps consider empowering it to adopt a more proactive role in ensuring the quality of the guidance and learning that it will be recommending to Scottish learners. That is all the more important if many of those learners are socially excluded, and anxious or even afraid to come back to learning in the first place. A high quality of guidance and learning must be guaranteed.
There is enormous emphasis on the learner as an individual. At one level, that may be unproblematic. After all, we are all different and have diverse needs. The university stresses that learning is to be offered where and when the learner wants it, rather than where and when the colleges, trainers, providers and universities will provide it.
To treat learning as an individual activity and to fund it as such is to deny the role of a range of groups and networks that may want to learn together. We need to find imaginative ways of funding social learning as well as individual learning. The university must have a role in providing groups—community groups, families who have literacy problems and want to learn together, disability groups, black and ethnic minorities—with the guidance that they need to be connected to the organisations that provide learning.
We should take the socialising of the Scottish university beyond its operation to its structure. If we want individuals—and, as I have argued, groups of every sort—to take ownership of learning, we must consider innovative ways of giving those who use the university a real stake in its ownership. That would be the best way of ensuring that it really is the Scottish people's university for industry.
I start by echoing the sentiments of John Swinney in giving a broad welcome to the progress that has been made in the establishment of the Scottish university for industry. I also welcome the opportunity that today's debate gives us to ask some important questions about the detail of the project.
There is no doubt that, as a concept, SUFI is, to use Henry McLeish's words, "ambitious and innovative". However, the acid test will be to assess how the jargon of the document—even Labour members would agree that it contains its fair share of jargon—translates into a reality that will add value to the existing provision for the many individuals and organisations that want and need easier and wider access to learning opportunities.
I want to reiterate three points that, inevitably at this stage in the debate, have been touched on by other speakers. My first point relates to what is called for in the SNP amendment: rigorous performance measurement. In order to judge the success or failure of the project in coming years, a rigorous and comprehensive system to measure performance must be in place in time for the establishment of SUFI. We need to measure, for example, how many more people, who were previously excluded, are accessing learning opportunities as a result of SUFI. There must be assessment of where those opportunities are being accessed. Similarly, we must assess the success rate of matching learning needs with learning opportunities. There must be careful monitoring of all those things.
We also need to monitor the different categories of user that are accessing the service. The document and past parliamentary questions make it clear that one of SUFI's key client groups is the small and medium business sector. No one would take issue with that. I am also concerned that young people, the unemployed and those people whose skills level effectively bans them from entry into the labour market have access to the opportunities offered by SUFI equal to that enjoyed by the business community. That is especially important in areas of high unemployment such as Glasgow, which is the area that I represent.
It is extremely important that those things are measured and that mechanisms to ensure that they happen are in place from the beginning. In accepting the amendment, the ministers are acknowledging—I hope that they will now flesh this out—the need to examine how such things are to be measured, so that, in future years, we can take a considered opinion of the practical success of the initiative.
My second point is connected to the general issue of access. Like Mr Lyon, I noted in the funding section of the document, that, after 2002, SUFI
"will seek to develop income streams in order to reduce dependency on government funding".
We have heard that the yearly revenue costs of SUFI may reach about £500,000. I want the minister to assure us that there will be no charges for the service over and above the cost of course fees. If there were, I would have serious concerns about access to the opportunities offered by SUFI, particularly in the categories that I have mentioned.
Finally, I reiterate the point made by my colleague Mr Swinney on general funding. I want the minister to give a guarantee that the start-up costs are not coming from the hard-pressed budgets of the further education sector because, if that were the case, the problems in that sector would become even worse than they are at the moment.
Like other contributors, I welcome the chance to speak in today's debate. The launch of the Scottish university for industry in autumn 2000 will mark an important and exciting time in Scotland's proud tradition of educational excellence. The university will respond constructively to the substantial pressures faced by Scots in a rapidly changing and dynamic global market. It will ensure that the learning opportunities that are offered by a range of institutions are responsive to the needs of the marketplace; by doing so, it will ensure that the Scottish people are well placed to compete for employment opportunities. It will also ensure that the learning opportunities that the institutions offer are responsive to the individual circumstances of people throughout Scotland.
We live in exciting and dynamic times. For those with access to information technology, information is more readily available now than at any time in the past. Conversely, those who are socially and technologically excluded become more excluded. We need to ensure that all members of Scottish society have access to the benefits of information technology. Along with other initiatives—such as the national grid for learning—the Scottish university for industry will ensure that that happens.
By establishing learning centres throughout Scotland, in places that are convenient for the individual learner rather than for the educational institutions, we will ensure that more people can take up the challenge of lifelong learning. Locating learning centres in the workplace, in local libraries, in schools or in shopping centres will allow for a more flexible approach to learning.
As a member of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, I welcome the investment of around £23 million over three years from the national lottery new opportunities fund to establish learning centres that will focus on the socially excluded. I am pleased that the Scottish Executive intends to add to that sum by providing £12 million over three years from the capital modernisation fund to be spent developing centres in non-traditional locations such as community schools. I also welcome the Executive's commitment to spend more than £16 million to develop the Scottish university for industry during the first three years. I believe that those spending pledges demonstrate our commitment to lifelong learning.
Through those efforts, the Scottish university for industry will provide educational opportunities for the many and not the few. It will provide the Scottish taxpayer with value for money. It will be ideally placed to benefit from economies of scale and to deploy resources effectively. Learning providers will benefit from extensive marketing and promotion, which will be undertaken through a variety of methods. The promotion of new technologies will help to drive down the costs of learning materials. Effective and efficient learning opportunities will result from partnership work with agencies such as further and higher education institutions, schools, the private sector, trade unions, libraries and local enterprise companies.
Like Mr Russell, I noted that SUFI has not decided where to establish its headquarters. Members will not be surprised to learn that I would like to put in a bid for Airdrie and Shotts. Situated in the heart of Scotland, Airdrie and Shotts has a wealth of talented people and a need for increased employment opportunities. What better location could be found?
It makes sense for us to create educational and training systems that anticipate and respond to future knowledge needs by identifying relevant economic, employment and technical trends. That is an ambitious objective, but one that the people of Scotland deserve.
I want to pick up on what Brian Monteith said about SUFI—as we now seem to be calling it—attracting the derision of academics. That was not the impression that I got when I spoke to Borders College today. It has a student roll, including part-time and evening students, of some 10,000, and has doubled its roll in the past two years. It has welcomed the university for industry and—being a competitive and successful college itself—the opportunities the university gives it.
I have two caveats, aspects of which have been addressed. First, the necessary technology is not available and rural areas have particular telecommunications problems. The minister stressed the importance of deprived and rural areas; sometimes they are deprived rural areas. For instance, although Galashiels has ISDN lines, there are none in Newcastleton and other smaller Borders towns and villages, which means that there is no on-line remote video access for students in the area. If this is truly to be a university for all, rural students should have the same facilities as urban students. I am sure that the minister recognises that that would reduce the necessity for rural students to travel to study. Are there any plans to deal with that problem? Are there funds to install the necessary cabling to those areas?
Secondly, SUFI should make courses subject to minimum quality standards. The education provider should be monitored to ensure that we do not have charlatans posing as educators and awarding Mickey Mouse awards, which is what happens in the US degree culture. The clients— the students—should also be monitored to find out their satisfaction with the facility. The costs of the operation should also be monitored.
Karen Whitefield has put forward plan C and Mike Russell has suggested plan B. I have plan A, which is to locate the university in the Borders— and not just because the Borders has no domestic university. I am told by my technological colleagues that the joint academic network— JANET—lines, which are essential for digital connections, run through the Borders near Galashiels.
Locating the university in the Borders would emphasise that access to the university is open to all, whether they are in a conurbation or in the country, and it would boost the economy of an area that deserves better than it has had. The letter to Mr Pignatelli is in the post tonight. By the way, it would be handy if the university was located next to the restored rail link.
I, too, support the Scottish university for industry. It will bring new learning opportunities to the home, the workplace and the community through the creation of a multimedia learning network.
I support the university's purposes: to improve the quality and availability of learning materials, to widen access for individuals and businesses— particularly small businesses—and to provide an opportunity in all parts of rural Scotland. However, the minister will not be surprised to hear that I also support the location of the national SUFI base in the Borders.
The Borders is a community without a home university, although two major Edinburgh universities have a presence in the area. We have access to advanced IT networks through the recently installed Eastman broad band link, which the First Minister viewed on the Heriot-Watt University campus. We also have a unified stance and welcome from Borders College, Scottish Borders Council, the local enterprise company and other agencies driven by the new ways strategy for redeveloping the Borders economy. There are sites for the university in Peebles, Melrose, St Boswells and other places, and Edinburgh and other parts of the central belt are only an hour away.
Mr Swinney talked about how things can be put into practice. Borders College is a contract partner in the major SUFI pilot consortium led by Napier University. In September, the college opened a pilot learning centre in Hawick and it is planning several more learning centres during the coming months in Galashiels, Jedburgh, Selkirk and Newcastleton.
The announcement represents an exciting opportunity. Perhaps the title is a misnomer. I hear that the minister might change it. I welcome today's announcement, as widening access to training will mean that 600,000 people a year in Scotland will take courses facilitated by SUFI.
As the previous two speakers were admirably brief, I will just about manage to get in one more if he or she will also be brief. I call Des McNulty.
I would like to give a general but not entirely enthusiastic welcome to the creation of a Scottish university for industry. There has been substantial delay in reaching the point that we are at and it is disappointing that we have had to wait so long for the Scottish university for industry proposal to come to fruition.
The university for industry could do a number of things that the present further and higher education system in Scotland cannot deliver, but having read the document I have some concerns about what we are about to create. I would like to highlight three issues.
First, having worked in higher education for more than 20 years, I know that there is a substantial resource cost and skills requirement in creating high technology-based learning materials. That is not fully recognised in the document. It is a very expensive process and many universities and businesses around the world are engaged in the production of such materials. To produce those materials at the required quality and to make them as accessible as is required is a very resource- intensive process. People should understand what is required if the objective is, as I think it must be, to achieve a world-class system of learning materials.
The university for industry is a start on that route, but it should not be seen as the only mechanism by which Scotland can move that agenda onwards. The university could be a co-ordinating mechanism, but the document does not make its role as clear as I would like.
The second great danger is that the university might become a separate university institution— another degree-awarding body. There is a real danger it might become a different kind of university that exists in competition with the current university sector. I see the proper role of the university for industry as being less a degree- awarding body than a bridge to learning. It could be a mechanism through which people who are presently excluded from learning—because of their personal circumstances, their educational history, or the fact that their particular needs are not catered for in the existing system—can get what they need.
The university for industry must have a unique selling point and its own profile. If it replicates the existing system, it will fail. The document should be clearer about that and I hope that ministers will be clear that it will be complementary—not more of the same—unique and different.
Thirdly, I think the chapter on partnership issues is vague. Partnership is a good idea, but I would have liked to see real case studies—not imaginary ones—that show what can be achieved in terms of real educational materials, the creation of learning centres and the other objectives mentioned in the document, through existing examples of co-operation between people in education and people in industry.
The document's objectives and the processes it mentions are entirely admirable.
Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
rose—
I am just about to wind up.
The document represents a positive start in the direction in which I would like to see us move, but it is not fully formed. I hope that the new management group of the university for industry and its newly appointed chief executive will take us much further forward, and that they will move us on more quickly than has been the case so far.
The university for industry offers great potential to Scotland, but I would like us to have arrived at this point a bit sooner, and to move rapidly forwards.
It is with the greatest of reluctance that I divert my attention from the young man's posterior—one of the more diverting features of the debate—on page 16 of the document.
The Conservative party entirely endorses the principle of the document, which states very properly that many people perceive learning as an end in itself and not as way of fulfilling their potential. It also says that
"the Scottish university for industry (SUfI) will change that. It will address people's aspirations, and raise their expectations of what learning can do for them."
That is admirable and we Conservatives applaud it, but endorsement of a principle justifies examination of the practice. This debate has raised questions about practice. How will the concept work and, indeed, what is the concept? Mr Stephen said in his introductory remarks that it will not be a university. Perhaps we ought to stop calling it that. He also said that it would not end up being called the Scottish university for industry. We need to get the nomenclature right.
If I may say so, if I think that the minister is an honourable man, I shall call him that, and if I think that he is a prat, I shall call him that, too. Whatever we think this is going to be, we ought to understand what it is and we should define it more precisely.
I suspect that it would be more honest to describe it as the institution for Scottish lifelong learning. One of the case studies in the document opens with the question:
"Why a Scottish University for Industry?"
and answers:
"If Scotland wants to remain part of a highly competitive global economy, it has to grasp fully the wide-ranging opportunities afforded by advances in technology."
That suggests to me that it must be driven by
industry and I hope that, when he winds up, the minister will confirm what consultation has taken place with industry and how industry responded.
Mr Swinney was right to refer to concerns about duplication of advisory and educational facilities at local level. That problem is already exercising the attention of members of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.
The document has much in the way of verbiage, but it also has glaring gaps. If, as has been indicated, this institution or concept is not to be a mere telephone database, we need to know the answer to some questions. We need to know how the expensive duplication of existing education and advice sources will be avoided and we need to know how the concept will materialise in a manner that is clear and accessible to the public. Such clarity is certainly lacking.
Would not the network of local enterprise companies be a sensible co-ordinator of local provision to serve industry? What will be the quantitative measures of the performance of the institution? How will we know whether it is working? How will be know whether it is succeeding in achieving whatever its declared objectives will be? This Parliament has a specific interest in those questions and I hope that the minister will clarify the Executive's intention to make matters more transparent.
Will the institution, whatever it is to be called, be directly accountable to the Executive? For audit purposes, will it be subject to annual examination by the Audit Committee of the Parliament? If those questions cannot be answered satisfactorily, the proposal will be seen as empty Government dogma and that would be regrettable. The Conservative party would like to see the Scottish university for industry as a much-needed added- value component to industry. That is what this country needs.
The Conservative party endorses the motion and the amendment. However, I hope that the minister will respond to questions about areas of concern when he winds up the debate.
I call Fergus Ewing to wind up for the Scottish National party.
When I glanced at the document rather late last night after a long and heavy dinner, I thought at first that it was not a Government publication at all but, because of the striking good looks of all the individuals involved, the portfolio of a local model agency. After I realised that my first perceptions were incorrect, I struggled through the night to work out exactly what the document is all about.
We all welcome the idea and the concept but, as T S Eliot once said:
"Between the idea And the reality"
falls the problem. As Mr McNulty said, there has already been unacceptable delay and we have little more than an idea, a concept. It is the Government's duty to come forward with workable, thought-out schemes that are capable of being implemented to meet their own purposes.
Just yesterday, the document described the proposed body as the Scottish university for industry. Today, we learn from Nicol Stephen that it is not going to be called the university for industry. In the history of the world of tertiary education, surely there has never been a university of such short duration—just 24 hours. I appreciate that I am a man of modest imagination, but perhaps the new name will be the new university for industry. [Laughter.]
To be serious, there is a worthy aim here. People need to develop skills and businesses need to find people to perform the work required for the future. However, if the role of the body is to matchmake, we are not talking about a university for industry at all, but about a dating agency. I have nothing whatever against that concept; in fact, I rather welcome it.
I wonder, however—again being serious for a moment—what is the reaction of the existing universities in Scotland to this new, proposed body, which has changed its name after 24 hours, and has unfortunately not yet got a new name on its birth certificate. What is the reaction of the further education colleges to this new kid on the quadrangle? I think that we should be told.
I think that we should also be told the answers to questions that have been asked by members on all sides of the chamber. Being part of a debate that is relatively free of political point scoring—in which I do not indulge myself, but which I have noticed goes on here from time to time—is a welcome experience.
I am bound to ask the following five questions. First, what will be different about the new body? Secondly, what that is different can the new institution do that others—such as the University of the Highlands and Islands learning resource centre, which, as Elaine Murray mentioned, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee visited last week—cannot?
Did I notice Alasdair getting off that posterior of his, which was referred to earlier in the debate, or is it just my imagination?
I saw hands on that photo—not a posterior.
Pass, Deputy Presiding Officer.
Why cannot existing institutions provide the worthwhile functions the Government has set out and with which we concur?
Thirdly, and specifically on funding, we understand that of the £16.3 million, £12 million will come from the capital modernisation fund. That leaves a shortfall of £4.3 million. Am I right to draw the conclusion that that £4.3 million will come from existing tertiary education institutions? Where will it come from? I am happy to give way to the deputy minister now, if he has any answers.
In the winding-up speech.
Okay.
Fourthly, what will the operating costs be? Half a million pounds seems far lower than what I would expect, given what I have heard.
Fifthly, what happened to the marketing campaign that Kim Howells referred to last year in the House of Commons? As George Lyon said, small businesses have needs that require to be met, but they know absolutely nothing about this project at the moment and they have no means of knowing how to avail themselves of the advantages that it might provide.
I am delighted that, for the second day running, the Executive has had the good sense to support an SNP amendment. It is a trend that, sadly, I think will be short lived. The amendment contains vital ideas. One is that before there can be a university for industry—a brokerage if that is what it is—two conditions must be met: value added and performance measurement. I would say, as a solicitor in my old days, that that is a condition precedent. Those two criteria must be fulfilled before the new body can be launched, exist or go anywhere.
In this debate, as in life, there have been more questions than answers. I think that it is the duty of the Government to provide answers. I hope that we will hear some.
We have had a useful debate this afternoon. It has given many of us a wider insight into the barriers to learning that people across Scotland face. Those barriers must be overcome if we are to realise a culture in which lifelong learning is for everyone.
As Nicol Stephen said, we will accept Mr
Swinney's amendment and appreciate that it reinforces our motion.
Mr Swinney asked about the motion. The Scottish UFI will be required to develop a number of success criteria, which will be monitored and, of course, published. They will include targets, such as the number of inquiries to the Scottish UFI helpline, the number of people who take up learning, the number who get into further learning, and the number who complete learning. The Scottish UFI will also be expected to publish an annual report and will be required to meet tough targets for its funding under a contractual agreement with the Scottish Executive.
I am glad to assure John Swinney—
Brian Adam (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
rose—
I would rather deal with the points raised during the debate and not give way at this stage.
I am glad to assure Mr Swinney that we will measure the effectiveness of the Scottish UFI on that basis, and on that basis I am content to accept his motion.
Mr Swinney asked about revenue funding for learning centres. The Scottish UFI will stimulate most people to learn, and will bring more business to learning providers. Some learners will be funded by existing student support mechanisms; others will use independent living allowances to fund their learning, drawing on the £150 incentive from the Government and on contributions from employers' own savings.
The short answer to Nicola Sturgeon's question is yes: funding of some £23 million, over three years, is available for Scotland through the national lottery's new opportunities fund to develop or enhance centres in existing premises. The aim is to increase community access to lifelong learning, particularly—as was rightly pointed out by several members—in deprived areas.
Mr Monteith's point concerned the need for a distinctively Scottish UFI. Scottish ministers accepted the Scottish UFI advisory group's recommendation that, in Scotland, the university for industry should be established as a distinct organisation that reflects the different arrangements that are in place for education, training and business development in Scotland. I must make the pedantic point that education is a devolved matter. It makes no sense to set up a UK body to address a devolved issue.
Jamie McGrigor raised the issue of more funding for Lews Castle College, in recognition of its remoteness. I am sure that Mr McGrigor will join me in congratulating Lews Castle College and the University of the Highlands and Islands in
establishing four distance learning centres in the western isles between Ness, in the north, and Barra. It was pointed out by my colleague Mr Nicol Stephen that in Barra we have a phenomenal success story—54 people enrolled for learning courses within weeks of that learning centre's opening. In the context of a population of 1,200, that is a remarkable success. There has been the additional good news that two students have enrolled for degree courses at that centre.
I suspect that, from the way in which Mr Morrison is addressing what has been said, he may have dealt with the points that I raised. However, I would like him to comment, either today or in writing afterwards, on one specific point that I raised. Will he explain how the university for industry project will create a reconfiguration of service provision locally, to meet the demand that is expressed by individual learners? Whether it can respond to personal demand for particular educational opportunities is the key to whether the university for industry proposal will make a difference. How will the university project influence that provision, either through learning centres or existing institutions?
I am delighted to respond to that question. I refer to something that I mentioned earlier—the learning centre on Barra. We would like that particular situation to be recreated throughout the country. We will establish learning centres in football stadiums and other unconventional arenas. I shall expand on that response in writing to Mr Swinney.
A bidding war about the location of the UFI has been going on all afternoon. Elaine Murray, Mike Russell and Euan Robson, among others, made their pitch. The name of the Scottish UFI—SUFI, as it has been called all day—is under consideration and will change in due course. However, the location of the Scottish UFI headquarters is still to be determined. That will be announced shortly.
Fergus Ewing said that he struggled through the night with this document. Well, it concerns me that he did, but it makes a refreshing change from Ceefax. [Laughter.]
The Scottish Executive aims to build a new culture of lifelong learning that will cut across traditional boundaries and reach people of all ages, backgrounds and capabilities. Education and training can generate higher earnings and lead to improved prospects and a better quality of life. They can help to build a more cohesive society, in which everyone can benefit from the opportunities that learning brings.
For our young people, the Scottish Executive is taking steps to modernise Scottish schools, to raise standards and to achieve excellence. For those who are already in the work force, or who aspire to join it soon, we are committed to widening access to world-class further education and to enabling people of all ages and from every section of the community to enjoy new educational opportunities and lifelong learning. We need to overcome past exclusion and break down the barriers that prevent people from re-engaging, as adults, with the world of education and learning.
We are committed to promoting greater social inclusion in Scotland. We want to encourage a society in which everyone, regardless of their personal, economic or geographic circumstances, is able to make the most of the opportunities available.
Flexibility and ease of access are fundamental. Ground-breaking lifelong learning initiatives, such as the Scottish university for industry, the national grid for learning and individual learning accounts, will harness the power of information technology by breaking down traditional constraints and creating dynamic new structures which will empower people to fulfil their potential. We are developing thinking on the national framework for individual learning accounts which will offer a way for individuals to invest in their own learning, with input from employers and, in certain targeted groups, from the state. We are committed to having 100,000 ILAs up and running in Scotland by 2002.
More than £200 million will be channelled towards the development of the national grid for learning over the next three years. By 2002, all schools will have good internet access and all school pupils will have their own e-mail address. Some £23 million is being spent in Scotland by the new opportunities fund to make training in the use of information and communications technology available to all teachers and school librarians. As far as I know, no other country has attempted a programme on this scale.
At the hub of our plans to create a culture of lifelong learning in Scotland is the Scottish university for industry. It will have a central role in motivating learners, telling people what learning is available, explaining particular qualifications, arranging for people to obtain advice on their choice of learning and putting people in touch with a learning provider.
For many people considering further learning, obtaining advice and guidance is critical. By taking over responsibility for the learning direct Scotland helpline, the Scottish UFI will take advantage of modern, responsive call-centre technology. The helpline will offer a comprehensive service of information and guidance to callers from across the country, free of charge. People also look for advice and guidance locally, and we recently announced continued funding for adult guidance
across Scotland to bring more coherence to the provision of guidance at a local level.
A good deal has still to be done before the Scottish UFI is operational next year. That was recognised by my colleague Nicol Stephen in his opening speech. To keep people informed of progress, the development team will issue a series of guides to individuals and organisations wishing to work with the Scottish UFI. In the coming months the Scottish UFI will aim to engage with learning providers, employers, national training organisations and others with a key interest in learning.
I am literally on my last sentence, John. The UFI will build strong working relationships with those organisations in the approach to the launch in the autumn. The Scottish UFI will be for everyone. I commend the motion to the Parliament.