Education and Training (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
Before we begin stage 3 proceedings on the Education and Training (Scotland) Bill, I want to make the usual announcement about the procedures that will be followed. Members will be becoming familiar with them by now.
First, we deal with amendments to the bill, then we move to debate on the question that the bill be passed. For the first part, members should have the bill, which is SP Bill 14A as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list containing all the amendments selected for debate and the groupings as agreed by the Presiding Officers. Amendments have been marshalled in the order that the Parliament has agreed, and will be debated in groups where appropriate. Each amendment will be disposed of in turn; an amendment that has been moved may be withdrawn with the agreement of the members present. It is of course possible for members not to move amendments if they wish.
The electronic voting system will be used in all divisions, and as is common on such occasions, I will allow an extended voting period of two minutes for the first division in each group.
Section 1—Education and training: grants
We now move to the marshalled list of amendments selected for stage 3. Fiona McLeod will move and speak to amendment 2, which is on its own.
In moving amendment 2, which is in my name, I want to make it clear to the chamber that the amendment is about targeting grants to new learners and people on low incomes.
The amendment is also about setting out principles—the flimsiness of the bill was debated at stage 1. The amendment is about the commitment of the Scottish Executive to lifelong learning and social inclusion, principles that everyone in the chamber supports and would want to see in the bill.
The Association of Scottish Colleges says that individual learning accounts should encourage into education and training those otherwise not inclined or able to take part, in particular, those from the most educationally and economically excluded groups, such as those in low-paid or casual employment or who are currently out of work. The Association of Scottish Colleges believes that consideration should be given to a priority place system, to ensure that new learners and those most in need of support are taking up ILAs. The 25 per cent targeting that is suggested in the amendment would allow that.
A recent poll by the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education found that 61 per cent of Scots who replied said that they were either unlikely or very unlikely to engage in any form of organised learning in the foreseeable future. That is a situation which we must address. If we believe in lifelong learning for all members of society, the chamber will welcome the amendment, which will ensure that 25 per cent of the funds will be targeted, in the first instance, towards new learners and those on low incomes.
Yesterday, I met a young woman from Who Cares? Scotland, who informed me of the frightening statistic that only 1 per cent of care leavers go on to any kind of further education. We have to overcome that, and the 25 per cent rule would help us to do so.
To illustrate why I felt the need to lodge the amendment, I will quote Nicol Stephen's reply to Margaret Ewing during the stage 1 debate. He said:
"The system will be demand led, based on the requests that are received."—[Official Report, 25 May 2000; Vol 6, c 1158.]
I do not believe that that is good enough to ensure that we capture everyone who needs to learn, especially those who are the most difficult to reach and are least likely to take advantage of ILAs without an extra incentive.
I take heart from Nicol Stephen's comments at the stage 2 debate in the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. He suggested that, as some members of the committee had suggested, we might start to target individual groups for individual learning accounts or for priority treatment. He said that, once we have kick-started ILAs and started to change the culture and attitude towards lifelong learning, we might more closely target individual learning accounts or aspects of them on non-traditional learners and the socially excluded.
I say to Nicol Stephen that, by accepting my amendment, he will ensure that we do not have to wait until we have kick-started the process and that the principles of lifelong learning and social inclusion will be included in the bill.
I move amendment 2.
This could have been the first time that members would have seen a minister filibustering to fill the time allocated by the timetabling motion, but I will avoid the temptation to do so and make swift progress through the amendments, while ensuring that there is full debate on every item. There will be adequate time for that, given the length of time that was allocated to stage 2 in committee.
Fiona McLeod questioned whether the bill makes it clear that we believe in lifelong learning for all members of society. The answer to that, clearly, is yes. That is what the bill is intended to achieve, which is why it has secured cross-party support. We want to reach all members of society. I will talk about the issue of targeting shortly.
The bill is aimed at achieving a major cultural change in people's approach to learning. Everyone must update their skills throughout their lives, and we believe that it is important that the individual learning account scheme is open to absolutely everyone aged 18 and over throughout Scotland. While we want to encourage new learners in particular, we also want to encourage existing learners to continue the learning habit throughout their lives. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to limit the availability of individual learning accounts at this stage.
We fully acknowledge that we must ensure that those who have the most to gain take full advantage of the initiative, such as those mentioned by Fiona McLeod: individuals with low skills, the socially disadvantaged and those who have, for whatever reason, not accessed training in the past. We will do all that we can to ensure that we reach those individuals.
However, the initiative must be demand led—we are talking about adults, and learning cannot be forced on individuals. We must encourage, motivate and get the cultural change that is required to ensure that people access learning throughout their lives. It would be inappropriate to ration the supply of individual learning accounts to particular groups, and quite wrong to include in the bill a fixed percentage—the 25 per cent suggested by Fiona McLeod—which none of us, with hand on heart, knows is the right percentage.
We believe that demand is better tackled through the marketing strategy, which will ensure that the maximum effort is spent on getting the individual learning account message through to the right people in the right places. As Fiona McLeod said, that means reaching the socially disadvantaged and those who have not accessed learning in the past. It is more important to debate how much of that marketing effort is to be spent on the deprived and rural areas of Scotland, and on ensuring that people aged 18 and over know about the initiative and how it will be able to help them.
As I indicated during the earlier stages of the Education and Training (Scotland) Bill, local enterprise companies will have the lead role in relation to the marketing strategy. They will try to ensure that we achieve those aims, but we will closely monitor the strategy. In future, having kick-started the scheme, to use Fiona McLeod's term, we can consider a targeting approach, if appropriate. Given that this is such a major scheme, with a target of 100,000 individual learning accounts over the next two years, everyone would agree that it would be dangerous to restrict the scheme in the way suggested by Fiona McLeod, as the message would fail to get through to individuals in deprived communities and would fail to reach the people whom it is most important to reach. At this stage, the universal approach is the right one.
We will give a targeted approach further consideration, but such an approach should not be included in the bill. We have the flexibility to amend the regulations if that is felt to be appropriate at a later date.
Will the minister give way?
I am just about to close, but I will give way to Dr Simpson.
In rejecting amendment 2, despite its excellent sentiments, will the minister agree to discuss with the appropriate committee the details of the monitoring of the scheme? LECs may be able to demonstrate strong evidence that groups such as adults who were previously looked-after children and those emerging from prison, who are also often previously looked-after children, are being encouraged to take up individual learning accounts. If so, many of us would feel much more comfortable in rejecting this quite restrictive amendment.
Absolutely—I guarantee that feedback will be given to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. We will monitor progress, analyse how the marketing budget is being spent and identify whether disadvantaged groups and non-traditional learners are accessing individual learning accounts in the numbers that we wish. If there are problems, we will ensure that some of the budget for individual learning accounts is spent on trying to overcome those problems.
However, I believe that we should consider taking such action at a later stage, once individual learning accounts are up and running. I believe that neither amendment 2 nor the 25 per cent threshold should be part of the bill.
I ask Parliament to reject amendment 2.
I support amendment 2, in the name of Fiona McLeod. I wish to declare an interest: in a previous life, as a consultant, I undertook a number of reviews of individual learning account programmes. One of the key conclusions of nearly all the studies of the pilot programmes that I have seen so far is that neither the benefits to new learners and to socially excluded people nor the penetration level have been as great as for other people.
I am disappointed in the minister's response. If he had said that he did not want the text of the amendment in the bill, but made some positive proposals to achieve its objectives, it would have been most acceptable. However, the minister has not come up with anything that in any way guarantees that the people from low-income groups and new learners will be targeted under the programme in the way that is required.
I can give some practical illustrations of why such targeting is required. The minister has mentioned a target of 100,000 people taking up individual learning accounts over the next two years, which is about 50,000 people a year. Achieving the numerical target will not be that difficult. One of the current problems in many training programmes, particularly as the end of the financial year is approached, is that, in every local enterprise company the length and breadth of Scotland, it is a case of getting bums on seats to achieve the numerical targets.
If the programme concentrates purely on the throughput target, it will not achieve its other, equally important, objectives, in particular that of encouraging a high proportion of new learners and people from low-income groups.
The other reason why amendment 2 is required is that the type of people who tend not to be volunteered by companies on a proactive basis are those in their middle age of working, particularly males over the age of 45. There is a special problem with the percentage of males over 45 who are becoming economically inactive, and who are finding it difficult to get retraining or to find alternative employment. That needs to be tackled. The individual learning account programme is one way to try to expand opportunity and to ensure that males over the age of 45 in particular, one of the highest unemployment groups in Scotland, can gain greater access to learning and training and, through that, greater access to employment or alternative employment opportunities.
The minister says that the individual learning account programme is to be demand led. If it is demand led, the usual suspects in every company will be the first to volunteer for the programme. They are the people who benefit from nearly all the existing programmes, and who will benefit most from this one. The people who are least likely to volunteer for such a programme are on low incomes; they might have families to look after or might be a bit worried about going through the process of learning for the first time in perhaps 20 or 30 years.
If the programme is to be demand led, and if there is to be no proactive promotion of it among the target groups that I mentioned, the objectives that the Government has set itself will not be achieved.
The chances are that we will not win the vote on the amendment, but I beg the minister to produce something more substantial and to give us proactive proposals as to how the targets are to be achieved.
We have much sympathy with Ms McLeod's amendment. The difficulty was whether to accept it at this stage or—as was alluded to by the minister—to face the prospect of inflexibility being brought into the bill.
One of the features that struck me in committee was the experience of the pilot scheme in Grampian. Clearly, an attempt to introduce a rigid template there had not worked. That was quickly recognised and, quite rightly, the scheme switched to a demand-led approach, with vastly improved marketing, to ensure that the people who could benefit from the scheme were aware of it and could then apply.
While there is sympathy for the amendment from Conservative members, I feel that to agree to it would lead to an unacceptable element of inflexibility in the scheme at its embryonic stage. Having said that, I believe that there might be an argument—as Dr Simpson suggested—for monitoring carefully the application of the scheme once it is in operation. Without a shadow of doubt, the scheme is good and worthy. It is an exciting prospect for Scotland, but it will be important to assess, after a due period, just what its practical consequences have been.
With some reluctance, Conservative members are unable to support Fiona McLeod's amendment. However, I hope that my comments show that we are far from hostile to the sentiment that it tries to express.
I, too, am far from hostile to the amendment, but I do not feel that I can agree to it. Individual learning accounts are one initiative in a whole spectrum of initiatives to encourage people to become involved in training and learning.
Although I sympathise very much with what Fiona McLeod is saying—indeed, as someone who used to teach adults, I am well aware of the difficulty of attracting back to the education system people who are alienated from learning—I am not convinced that the method that the amendment suggests will be more successful. I am not convinced that saying that 25 per cent of the money will be set aside, which nobody else can access, is the way to ensure that the most educationally disadvantaged sectors of society come forward to take it up.
The way to ensure that people who do not traditionally associate themselves with learning regard the scheme as providing an advantage and an opportunity for themselves is by promoting the individual learning account and by being proactive about the opportunities for learning in disadvantaged communities. Regretfully, although I agree with the sentiments of what Fiona McLeod is saying, I cannot support the amendment.
The original purpose of creating individual learning accounts was to provide skills, education and training to those who lacked them and who were on low incomes. That was the provenance of the ILA concept. The Moser report, which examined the situation in England and Wales, found that some 7 million adults in England—one in five adults—if given the alphabetical index to the "Yellow Pages", could not locate the page reference for plumbers. I would not argue that the picture is any less bleak, and frankly appalling, in Scotland. Members of all parties recognise the scale of the problem.
Given that the problem that is to be addressed relates to those who are least skilled and least well off, surely the bill must propose specific measures to tackle that. That was its original purpose. At stage 2, members of all parties were supportive of that principle; what we lack is any specific measure by which that worthy and essential aim is to be achieved.
I shall now address some of the arguments that have been advanced by other members against accepting the excellent amendment that has been lodged by Fiona McLeod. First, the quota that is being proposed by the amendment is not 80 per cent, nor 60 per cent, nor even 50 per cent. It is not even half: it is one quarter—25 per cent. That is all. Nevertheless, that was described by the minister as limiting. How is that a limit?
Secondly, I wondered whether the minister was going to say, in response to the intelligent intervention by Dr Simpson, whether there would be monitoring. If there was no monitoring, that would reduce the bureaucracy and the costs, as such a scheme would not have to be administered. However, the minister said that there will be a monitoring scheme. The costs will be there, but we will see none of the benefits.
Thirdly, Annabel Goldie mentioned inflexibility. With great respect, I do not feel that the case has been made that a threshold of 25 per cent would create inflexibility. I do not think that that will happen.
The problem—certainly in the services that I have worked in—is that inclusion of figures such as the 25 per cent that is mentioned in amendment 2 means that those figures become the limit for which people will strive. That would happen despite the fact that the words "at least" are included in the amendment. It is inappropriate to include the figure of 25 per cent in the bill, however worthwhile the spirit of the amendment might be.
The fact remains that 25 per cent is so small a threshold as not to create inflexibility. I understand that those who are administering the scheme would always have to have regard to that threshold and—as we heard in response to Dr Simpson's earlier intervention—that that would occur anyway. Given Frank Pignatelli's evidence to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and his obvious enthusiasm for our shared aim of ensuring that those who are least skilled and least well off benefit from the scheme, I suspect that much effort will be applied to that.
Alex Neil's point was not party political, but a commonsense point by somebody who has experience in the matter. He said that the people who will come forward to apply will be those who would have done so anyway. In many cases, the training that will be provided by excellent companies such as Scottish Power in 50 learning centres throughout the UK would have been provided by those companies anyway. The difference is that they will be paid by the state to provide the training. There is risk that the intended beneficiaries of the legislation will lose out.
In supporting Fiona McLeod's amendment 2, I suggest to members that—after they examine their whips' notices—they should, by agreeing to the amendment, decide to give a chance to those who have no chance.
It is important to make the point that the bill is an enabling measure to ensure that ILAs are introduced in Scotland at the same time as they are introduced in England and Wales, which will ensure that Scots are not disadvantaged.
It would be churlish not to welcome the nationalists' conversion to support for ILAs, now that they have dropped their previous Luddite opposition to the concept.
I support what Elaine Murray and Annabel Goldie said about the amendment. Considerable changes have been made to the bill and to the accompanying regulations as a consequence of the consultation exercise.
Will Allan Wilson give way?
No, I will just continue, if Fergus Ewing does not mind.
Och, well—on you go.
I am curious about the radical changes that Allan Wilson says have taken place. I might have been asleep when those changes were made in committee, but unfortunately—as members know—I tend to stay awake in committees; I know that that is not popular, but it is the case. There have been four changes, which have all been purely technical. Where are the radical amendments that Allan Wilson talks about?
There have been four amendments. That is a factual statement of the changes that have been made, but Fergus Ewing is also fully aware of the consultation exercise that took place before the bill was introduced. Annabel Goldie's point was relevant and I am sure that Fergus Ewing will agree that the evidence from the Grampian pilot—on the failure of targeting as a system of introducing individual learning accounts—was compelling. The suggested switch to a demand-led approach, which agencies will be expected to introduce, is correct.
I agree with some of the sentiments that have been expressed, particularly those of Alex Neil on targeting the right people and ensuring that individual learning accounts reach out to those who would otherwise be untouched by the further and higher education systems. The demand-led approach as outlined by the minister is right. Although I agree with the sentiments behind the amendment, I cannot support it.
The minister may, if he wishes, respond to points that have been raised.
I hope that we are not in danger of snatching division from the jaws of consensus on the issue. I think we all agree that the bill is good and that individual learning accounts are to be supported. We also agree that we need to change the culture of learning in this country and to reach the socially disadvantaged, those on low incomes and people who have not accessed training in the past. However, it is difficult to agree to the detailed wording of amendment 2, although we understand the spirit and sentiment that lie behind it.
I take Annabel Goldie's point about the need for monitoring, but monitoring takes place after the event. What we need is a proactive initiative to ensure that the objectives in amendment 2 are met. Will the minister therefore make some positive proposals to ensure that those who are on low incomes, or who do not have existing accreditation, will be given priority and will be targeted in the promotion and organisation of the programme?
In the spirit of consensus, it is important that we should do that. We should explain how the marketing strategy will target the socially disadvantaged, non-traditional learners and those in more remote rural areas. As well as making monitoring reports known to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, I shall undertake to explain to the committee how the marketing strategy is to be carried forward.
At the moment, however, I do not think that anyone in the chamber could say whether meeting a 25 per cent target would be a success; perhaps the figure should be 30 per cent, or 20 per cent. As Fergus Ewing said, the figure does not, on the face of it, seem unreasonable, but we do not have the facts to know whether it is correct, so it should not be in the bill.
If the amendment were passed, would that guarantee that more individuals from deprived groups would access individual learning accounts? Again, I do not see how any of us can be absolutely confident that agreeing to amendment 2 would change the number of people from disadvantaged groups coming forward to access individual learning accounts.
Alex Neil spoke about the target. The target of 100,000 new learners is ambitious; I do not think that anyone should doubt that. In the early days of the pilot, we found the target in Grampian very hard to meet. As Annabel Goldie pointed out, some quite significant changes were made to the model to ensure that the uptake of individual learning accounts increased. Thanks to the changes that were made to the model, a significant turnaround was achieved. Working like that on the ground, on the detail of the model, is important.
I shall give two guarantees, because guarantees were asked for. First, I guarantee that the marketing effort will be targeted on the socially disadvantaged, on non-traditional learners and on the sort of groups that Fiona McLeod specifically refers to in her amendment. Those people will not be the sole target, but significantly greater emphasis will be given to those groups than will be given to the general public. Secondly, I guarantee that the monitoring and assessment process will be important, and that we will keep the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee informed about it.
I have listened with great interest and I am glad to hear that members of other parties are not hostile to the intent behind my amendment. Unfortunately, what I hear from the minister is talk about marketing rather than principle. My amendment is about ensuring principles rather than a marketing campaign.
The figure of 25 per cent was arrived at after careful consideration of the facts of the matter. Members may remember that just last month there was a report, on which Henry McLeish has commented, which stated that a million people in Scotland suffer from illiteracy. A million people is approximately 20 per cent of the population of Scotland. A target of 25 per cent would therefore ensure that those who are most in need of support would get the support that they need.
There was also talk about inflexibility, but the target in the amendment is not inflexible. The final part of the amendment indicates that, if less than 25 per cent of the money that has been allocated to an individual is paid in any one year, that money is not lost and may be redistributed as appropriate.
The change that was made in the Grampian Enterprise pilot was in better targeting. It ensured that people in Grampian who needed to be brought into the system were brought into the system. I regard that as targeting and as principle; I do not regard it as marketing. Why do we have to wait for a marketing exercise and for monitoring, when we have the chance to put into the bill the principle that those who are most in need of lifelong learning will get access to it?
The question is, that amendment 2, in the name of Fiona McLeod, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Elder, Dorothy-Grace (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Galbraith, Mr Sam (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnston, Nick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
MacLean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLetchie, David (Lothians) (Con)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, Mr John (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 29, Against 70, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 2 disagreed to.
We move to amendment 1, which is grouped with amendment 3.
The bill is about providing grants to help people to obtain skills, education and training. Amendment 1 seeks to ensure that we do not discriminate against people who live in parts of rural Scotland. How might those people be discriminated against? Well, let us consider how the system will operate. It is proposed that there should be a basic grant of £150 that the individual can use to cover the costs of obtaining skills, education or training. The individual contributes £25 towards the cost. Those figures are not huge—£150 does not buy a very long course or a complicated piece of training. Given that those figures are low, what happens if that individual has to spend £50 or £100 on travelling to the place where the training or education is provided? Plainly, a person in that situation is meeting costs and liabilities that do not have to be met by someone who can travel on foot or by bus to the local college, learning centre, in-house training centre at work, or other place where learning might be received.
I accept fully that there are many different types of establishment where learning will be received. My constituency covers an area five times as big as greater London, which has 90 members of Parliament. People who live in places such as Inverie and want to get to the nearest college have to take a ferry to Mallaig and then some vehicular transport—not public transport—to Fort William, along the only single-track trunk route in Britain. A person making that journey will incur substantial costs, for which the bill makes no provision.
Amendment 1 would give ministers the power to make such provision. I could have lodged an amendment that spelled out exactly what assistance should be received, but I accept that the matter is not straightforward. None the less, unless provision is made to help those who live in many parts of rural Scotland, they will be discriminated against. There is no doubt about that.
I understand that the minister is sympathetic to the problem. Originally, his response was that there would be no provision for transport costs. However, after hearing debate, he indicated that the Executive would consider matters further. That is appreciated. I also understand that there has been a pilot scheme in Lochaber, where a fund has been made available to the local enterprise company to deal with matters as they arise in practice. That is all well and good, but if the minister recognises that a pilot scheme is necessary, he must recognise that there should be provision in the programme itself.
Henry McLeish has announced that £8 million will be made available for child care; I believe that Fiona McLeod will say more about that shortly. I hope that the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning will indicate in his response whether we are correct in understanding that not one penny of that £8 million can be used for ILAs, but that it is all to be used for further education. If that is the case, the announcement appears to be a red herring. I hope that the minister will take that on board.
In the debates that we have had so far on this issue, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning has said that a scheme to cover travel costs would be too complicated to administer. However, I do not see that the scheme that covers the travel costs of MSPs or civil servants is too expensive to administer. It is unlikely that the minister's argument will find favour with the many people in rural Scotland who will, I believe, be discriminated against unless amendment 1 is agreed to.
I move amendment 1.
I have a tentative time line in my head for debate on the amendments, to allow fair discussion throughout. We are eating quite deeply into that, so I would be grateful if opening speeches could be limited to four minutes and other speeches to three minutes.
Amendment 3 is about targeting. It would ensure that the grants provide for the associated costs of learning that are incurred by two particular groups—those who care for others and those who need care for themselves. The statistics bear out the fact that those two groups are under-represented in education and training courses.
The new section 1(2A) that would be created by amendment 3 relates to child care and other caring responsibilities. In a recent survey of women returners, to which my colleague Nicola Sturgeon has referred on previous occasions, it was found that the high costs of child care were still a disincentive to women's returning to work, training or education. In the stage 1 debate on 25 May, I asked the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning about the £8 million that Henry McLeish had announced for child care at further education colleges. At that stage, the minister was unable to indicate clearly that that £8 million would be accessible by people with individual learning accounts. I would appreciate it if the minister could take the time to clarify that.
I turn to carers other than those with child care responsibilities. The Carers National Association in Scotland reckons that there are 500,000 carers in Scotland, who save the Government a total of £3.4 billion per annum. It is unreasonable to ask those carers to bear the burden of providing alternative care arrangements so that they can go into some kind of education and training. If carers are saving the Government £3.4 billion per annum, it is only fair that the Government does not allow them to bear the costs of returning to training and education.
The NCA is asking the Government to make two pledges: to abolish the 21-hour study rule, which affects an individual's ability to claim individual care allowance; and to develop individual learning accounts for carers who receive long-term ICA. It is only reasonable that we write that onto the face of the bill; it is about principle, and ensuring that those who care for others have the financial ability to train themselves for the future.
We all know—the facts are there—that it is more costly for disabled students to enter education and training. They need their associated costs to be covered. Enable reckons that there are 50,000 people in Scotland with a learning disability. If we want to encourage those people into education and training, we must ensure that they do not pay a financial penalty for it.
I refer first to amendment 1 from Fergus Ewing. As I explained in our earlier debate, travel costs and expenses are relevant to all learning. I want a more consistent approach to that issue, and to child care and the treatment of the disabled for all aspects of post-16 learning. We will not achieve all that we want through the bill, which is about the funding of individual learning accounts. In other parts of the UK, the funds for individual learning accounts will be used for that purpose only, and not for travel and expenses and child care.
We are taking seriously the concerns expressed by Fergus Ewing and others and—as he mentioned—as a result we have announced two pilot schemes, one in Lochaber and the other in the Scottish Borders. Those pilots will test different approaches to the funding of travel and child care for individual learning account holders. The extra funding for child care is mostly being made available to further education. Some of it will be available to higher education, but further education will be one of the major sources of individual learning account courses. The pilots will be operated on the basis of a discretionary fund that will be available to assist with all the costs that I have mentioned. We will monitor the results closely and will consider how they impact on overall individual learning account policy. No doubt, the results will be examined with interest in all parts of the UK and we will take them into account when we review the regulations at the end of the first year.
We do not need the amendments on the face of the bill to do the things that Fiona McLeod and Fergus Ewing wish. It is a relatively short bill and the important part is the regulations. The detail, in terms of how individual learning accounts are to be delivered, will be contained in the regulations, which have been shown to members of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. Those regulations have already been amended to take into consideration some of the issues that were raised by the committee.
It is unnecessary to have the amendments on the face of the bill. Indeed, it would be somewhat strange if the only points of substance in the bill referred to expenses, child care and travel costs, rather than to some of the other important issues to do with individual learning accounts, skills and training and education that are contained in the regulations.
On amendment 3, I want to address the issue of caring responsibilities and the difficulties associated with disability. Again, individual learning accounts will not provide all the answers, but we appreciate the need to make progress. The issue has been raised for the first time at stage 3—it was not raised at stage 2—so we want to be as helpful as we can. The matters that Fiona McLeod has raised are worthy of further consideration. I guarantee to look further at the issue, but at a later date. I do not want to raise expectations now, because the issue will not be resolvable by the time that individual learning accounts are launched in September. However, when the regulations are reviewed within their first year of operation, I would be willing to consider whether such costs should be met. If there were clear examples of need, the review would offer a suitable opportunity to consider the case for tackling such costs.
As for amendment 1, the existing powers in section 1(1) of the bill would be sufficient to introduce such a scheme for costs if it were justified.
Will the minister give way?
I have been asked to wind up, so I should not give way.
I feel seized with a slight attack of schizophrenia; we are minded to support Mr Ewing's amendment, but feel unable to support Fiona McLeod's amendment—unless she takes umbrage that I am expressing a preference for the clean-cut virility of Mr Ewing, as distinct from her own manifest virtues. Let me explain further.
Mr Ewing's amendment was debated at stage 2, and I found that debate helpful. My recollection is that in view of the contributions that were made in committee, Mr Ewing revised his amendment slightly, and I now find merit in it. It is clear that the scheme could pose problems for applicants in remoter, rural areas of Scotland. The pilot schemes that are under way in Lochaber and the Scottish Borders may be instructive in that respect. Our support for Mr Ewing's amendment is principally in recognition of those parts of Scotland where problems could exist. It would be unfortunate if an applicant felt prejudiced or deterred from applying simply because distance and remoteness intervened. I do not need to say any more than that we find merit in Mr Ewing's amendment and we are minded to support it.
We are sympathetic to Fiona McLeod's amendment, as we were to the previous amendment. The distinction that we draw on her amendment is that the broader costs that she wishes to embrace within the scheme and put in the bill are just that—broader. At this stage, it would be premature to bring those costs into the bill. Having said that, although we are minded to oppose the amendment, I reiterate what I said earlier about the need to monitor the application of the scheme. If it were the case—either by virtue of operation of the pilot schemes or by the accumulation of evidence once the scheme is working—that persons in the classes mentioned in amendment 3 were being prejudiced or deterred from the proper uptake of individual learning accounts, that would be a matter for concern. At that point the issue should be revisited.
Once again, I am sympathetic to the intentions of the amendments, but an enabling bill is not the place in which to address the issues.
Individual learning accounts should be one of a raft of lifelong learning opportunities. There are barriers to learning, some of which have been mentioned: travel, accommodation, child care, caring responsibilities and the costs associated with disability. There are a number of other potential barriers to learning for people in different communities, not just in rural areas; barriers to learning also exist for people in urban communities. Those issues need to be addressed. We need strategies that address barriers to learning at all levels of lifelong learning in our society. I hope that the Executive will develop plans to try to ensure that everybody has equal access to learning at whatever level is appropriate to them.
Many rural problems can be tackled by new technology and distance learning, which will bring learning opportunities to learners in their community, in their home, in their learning centre and possibly in their local primary school. Those aspects of lifelong learning ought to be properly addressed—it is not just about the tradition of people going from home to college, but about taking learning out to people in their communities.
When the minister spoke to us, in the stage 2 debate, about the pilot schemes in Lochaber and in the Borders in rural southern Scotland, he said that the schemes would be reviewed and that ministers would consider the results after the regulations had been in place for a year. His concern was to identify areas where need and the size of barriers were likely to be greatest. There is value in waiting to learn from the results of those pilots—there is not much point in having a pilot scheme, then pre-supposing its results. Unfortunately, I will oppose both amendments.
I make a brief contribution in support of amendment 1. The Parliament has experienced something novel today. We have not heard Fergus Ewing make a more reasonable speech to Parliament in his life than the one he made in the chamber this morning. It was a very persuasive speech. Fergus made a point that will recur during the consideration of the bill.
There is also a lesson that the Government should take from the bill's contents. We cannot put forward such slim pieces of legislation, which require Parliament to put so much faith in the comments that are put on the record by ministers, that we have to put additional provisions into the bill to strengthen its contents and to give real substance to the commitments that ministers gave in the stage 2 consideration and that have been reiterated by the minister today.
The point that has been advanced in amendment 1 is the importance of recognising that once we have all the regimes in place to support distance learning, and once a variety of other measures are taken forward, it will still be necessary for people in different parts of rural Scotland, in attending particular courses, to incur travel and accommodation costs. No matter what the technological developments and changes are, parts of Scotland simply will be unable to participate in the exercise. All that this reasonably expressed amendment is suggesting is that ministers are given power to change that.
I listened to Elaine Murray talking about giving the pilot exercises time. Of course, pilot exercises are important to check what assistance is required, but all the amendment does is give ministers the power to act on the issues raised by the pilot exercises. Ministers would be doing consensus building in the Parliament a great service if they were able to respond positively to the amendment that has been reasonably put forward by Fergus Ewing.
I apologise to two members who, for time reasons, I cannot call.
I respond in the spirit of John Swinney's contribution. Ministers, having considered this issue, are prepared to make an amendment to the draft regulations that have been seen by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, to make it clear that there is the power to include travel and accommodation costs. The pilot schemes reflect that. We will put that on the face of the regulations to be lodged this summer. I hope that, because that effectively covers the issue that Fergus Ewing is driving at, he might be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
I gave the assurance in my earlier remarks that we would do what Annabel Goldie asks for, which is to monitor the issues raised by Fiona McLeod. We are prepared to come back to those issues during the first year of operation. We could not act quickly enough to ensure that those issues are properly covered in time for the launch of the scheme in the autumn.
I agree with Elaine Murray that this is not simply about the issue of ensuring access by individuals to traditional forms of learning in main centres. Part of the change of culture that we have to achieve is to bring learning out into communities by using the new technologies and by changing our attitude to the forms of learning that we provide at the moment. Learning tomorrow will be very different from learning today.
I am pleased that the minister has made a partial concession and welcome it in the spirit in which it was given. However, I believe that it is important, for the reasons John Swinney gave, for the principle contained in amendment 1 not to be in regulations that we have not seen, but to be on the face of the bill before us today.
It is an important principle. Unless I misheard the minister, the concession did not apply to subsistence costs, so I am not sure if that aspect of the amendment will be covered in the regulations. The amendment contains an enabling provision and does not, as Elaine Murray suggested, presuppose anything. Quite the opposite—it confers on ministers the power to ensure that people in rural Scotland are not discriminated against.
As Mr Ewing says, it is an enabling measure and does not require ministers to include those issues in the regulations. I am saying that we will do so and that the final wording will include both travel and accommodation expenses.
It is getting better and better; perhaps we should keep going. We have not seen the regulations and we look forward to seeing them. It is important for bills to contain principles—that is what they are for. The principle in question is that people in rural Scotland should not be discriminated against, and that principle should be contained in the bill.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnston, Nick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Lothians) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Galbraith, Mr Sam (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
MacLean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, Mr John (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 37, Against 60, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
Amendment 3 was debated with amendment 1.
In formally moving amendment 3, I would like to refute some of the comments that were made.
Nicol Stephen said that this was about funding of individual learning accounts. However, it must be about funding the associated costs as well. I raised those issues at stage 1, so they should not have come as a surprise. I would have thought that the Government would have thought of those people in its social inclusion policy. We are leaving vulnerable people for another year before we deal with the associated costs that their caring and caring needs bring to them. Please vote for this amendment.
I move amendment 3.
I am informed by the clerks that, since the minister spoke to amendment 3 in the previous debate, there can be no further response. We will therefore move directly to the vote.
The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
On a point of order. Can I check that the voting machines are working?
Is there some doubt?
Yes.
We cannot have a point of order during a division, but my understanding is that the voting machines are working. When voting time has run out, we will see what has happened and you can raise your point then.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Elder, Dorothy-Grace (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnston, Nick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
MacLean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLetchie, David (Lothians) (Con)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, Mr John (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 25, Against 66, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 3 disagreed to.
Mr Brown, did you have trouble with your console?
Yes. I am fairly certain that my vote was not registered.
Would you like to inform the chamber of your vote, so that we have you on the record?
Yes please. Thank you. [Members: "How did you vote?"] My vote was no.
The record is now correct.
Section 3—Regulations
We now move to amendment 4, which is on its own.
I originally raised this amendment, with the support of Nick Johnston, at stage 2 of the bill. In the absence of my head being reduced to the pulped and bloody mass that I expected, I was encouraged to restate it for stage 3 of the bill.
There are two important issues. When this bill was debated in committee, it became apparent that the bill would not mean a lot to any external onlooker. If this Parliament is to acquire a reputation for clear and understandable legislation, there is a fundamental issue—[Interruption.]
Order. Conversations should take place outside the chamber, please, rather than inside.
The fundamental issue is, what quality of legislation do we want to promote within this Parliament for Scotland? This bill does not say anything that any person interested in this scheme would readily understand. In other words, there is nothing in the bill to tell potential applicants or employers how the scheme would work, whether applicants would be eligible or what they might expect from the scheme.
Those matters are covered by what are described as illustrative regulations. The committee expressed thanks to the minister for those illustrative regulations at stage 2. Interestingly, they allowed us to make total sense of the bill and enabled a proper debate to take place on how the statutory mechanism might work in practice. I think I speak for all the members of the committee in saying that the provision of the illustrative regulations allowed a meaningful debate to take place in the committee.
The gist of amendment 4 is to question whether it is appropriate or desirable that the Parliament should produce primary legislation that does not mean a great deal to anybody. Is it not preferable that regulations such as the illustrative regulations, which appear to be in just about their final form, are incorporated in a schedule, or whatever, so that everybody knows what the law will be and they are fully debated? The bill provides that the regulations will come into force by negative procedure. It is intended that the bits of paper that make sense of the act will become available only later, by being laid before the Parliament and being
"subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution".
That means that the regulations could be produced at the height of the holiday period when nobody is around, and that by lying unchallenged they become law. That is an undesirable principle for the Parliament to embrace early in its life.
My amendment is intended to reverse the procedure. Ideally, when regulations are as far advanced as these illustrative regulations are, they should be included in the bill before it is passed. If that is not possible and the regulations will have to be introduced subsequently, the clear preference ought to be that they are brought into force by an affirmative procedure, which would require a positive resolution of the Parliament.
I move amendment 4.
I sympathise with what Annabel Goldie says about the nature of the bill, which is a slim document. The approach that has been taken has been to include enabling powers in the bill and to have separate detailed regulations. However, her amendment will not change the bill, which will remain a slim piece of legislation, with only four sections, so I will focus on the question of whether a negative or an affirmative procedure is appropriate.
As I told the committee, a lot of information is available on the enabling powers and there is a full document on individual learning accounts. The draft regulations have been shown to the committee. The pilot schemes have taken place. The committee, if not the general public, has a good understanding of how individual learning accounts will work. The best argument that I can present on the issue of negative and affirmative procedures relates to the time scale: if we agree to amendment 4, we will not be able to launch individual learning accounts here at the same time as in the rest of the UK. That would be very unfortunate.
The minister refers to time scales, as he has done in previous debates. Is it not the case that the Executive is pressuring the Parliament too much to push through legislation? I do not believe that time scale is a good enough argument for not acknowledging that there are deficiencies in the bill.
Whether or not members regard my argument as good enough, I can only explain that the consequence of passing the amendment would be that we would not be able to launch individual learning accounts in the autumn, at the same time as they will be launched elsewhere in the UK.
On Phil Gallie's point, at this stage I concede what the minister says about time scale. However, should the minister not also put on record that the bill has not been in the parliamentary precincts for long? If my memory serves me correctly, the bill was introduced by ministers only in late April. If we had had it a few months before then, the regulations could have been debated in Parliament and we would not have to go through the rigmarole today of having to seek assurances about what might be in the regulations, albeit that the draft regulations have been published.
I appreciate that point. During the general debate, I will thank the committee and others for the efforts that they have made to progress the bill so quickly. The timetable has caused problems not only for the committee, but for ministers and civil servants. We would have liked to have more time.
The negative procedure is generally felt to be appropriate, provided that there are no significant or controversial issues in the statutory instrument—the regulations. I do not think that anyone would argue that the issues are significant; therefore, the only question is whether they are controversial. The draft regulations have been seen and amended—and further amended on the basis of the assurance that I have given to Fergus Ewing today. I hope, therefore, that they are no longer controversial and that, in the main, the committee and the Parliament are satisfied with them. On the basis of those reassurances, I hope that the bill can proceed unamended.
I must try to conclude stage 3 by 11.30 or time will be taken off Jackie Baillie's statement at 12.00, so I ask Donald Gorrie and John Swinney to give bullet points only, please.
I am perhaps being a bit slow in understanding, so I would like the minister to clarify why negative instruments get through quicker than affirmative instruments. Either one has to be laid on the table, or whatever the expression is, for a while. Affirmative resolutions take up some parliamentary time, but I do not see how they take any longer.
I will give way to the minister.
I am grateful. I will try to be brief. It is because there must be sitting days of the Parliament. There will not be sufficient sitting days between now and the launch date in the autumn.
I call John Swinney.
I only gave way to the minister.
I am sorry, Mr Gorrie, but can you be very brief, please.
If what the minister says is the case, there is no opportunity for the Parliament to object. Nicol Stephen is an excellent guy and I am sure that he will handle the regulations honourably, but it seems to set an extraordinarily bad precedent. Negative resolutions are a bad thing anyway.
That is not correct. Any member can object to the regulations once they are lodged. The hope is that they will not be objected to. If they were, it would delay the whole scheme. The negative procedure allows us to move forward within the timetable for the rest of the UK.
I call John Swinney.
Donald Gorrie may be confused by the debate, but I am confused about who is speaking. I want to make a brief contribution.
There is no coherence in the minister's response to Mr Gorrie and to the chamber. We cannot have it all ways. The bill was introduced only a short time ago. The reason that we are not able to go through the affirmative procedure is that there is a time scale to coincide with UK legislation. The minister has given a number of assurances about what will be in the regulations and about the detail. We talked about them in committee also. Nevertheless, it is fair that members want to be assured that the regulations will provide adequately for individuals who want to take up individual learning accounts.
The minister has said that by going through the negative procedure, the only way, in effect, that members will be able to express any concern about any minute detail of the regulations will be to oppose the whole lot. That is totally unsatisfactory. None of us wants to have to behave like that. We want to have the opportunity to take part in the debate constructively and to add value. Some big yes-or-no option, which forces members to take the no position, is an unhealthy way in which to deal with the Parliament.
I appeal to the minister's reasonableness and ask him to take on board the amendment, which adds a great deal to the bill, perhaps not in terms of text, but in terms of consideration of the regulations.
I will be brief. I support the amendment for two reasons. The bill is largely supported by regulation—regulation that we currently have to take on trust. The new legislation that we are debating today has been made with so little discussion that it is likely to require some changes. We have heard some of the arguments from Fiona McLeod on disability carers and from Fergus Ewing on rural issues. The argument about time scale is extremely weak—Donald Gorrie and John Swinney have summed that up adequately. Perhaps, in this case, Westminster should wait for us, so that we can approve the regulations using affirmative procedure.
The Conservatives are not happy with the fact that the legislation is being rushed through. I ask members to support the amendment if for no other reason than to indicate to ministers that Parliament will not stand such abuse in the future.
On a point of order. Presiding Officer, you may have noticed that, in the last division, the number of members from all parties not voting seemed to have increased. I have checked with the SNP members to ensure that they were in the chamber and pressed their buttons and they assure me that they did. I am not disputing the result of the vote, because there was such a big difference in numbers, but we need to ensure that the voting system is working for future divisions.
Indeed. The flurry of activity in the past 30 seconds relates to just that point. We suspect that there are five or six consoles that are a little faulty. Given the size of the votes, I would be very reluctant to suspend proceedings while we sort out the problem. We will report back to members at the earliest opportunity. Do members agree that we should continue?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you. I ask Nicol Stephen to respond to Nick Johnston's comments.
There is a lack of understanding of the procedure. I realise that it is complex. Under the negative procedure, if no member objects to the regulations, they go through. The advantage of that procedure is that Parliament does not have to be sitting to allow it to happen. If a member objected to the regulations, the matter would be debated in Parliament. That would happen under the negative procedure that is set out in the bill.
The affirmative procedure that Annabel Goldie seeks would mean that the regulations must be debated in Parliament. There would have to be an affirmative vote and therefore Parliament must be sitting. That would invoke a different time scale. The regulations must be lodged a certain number of days before the debate. The effect would be to delay the whole matter. There would not be an opportunity to amend the regulations line by line under the affirmative procedure. The vote at the end of the day would still be either for or against the regulations as they are lodged. It is important to emphasise that point.
We do not want delay and we do not think that the regulations are controversial. We believe that there is consensus on the issue and I hope that when the regulations are lodged they will be agreed to.
I have listened with interest to what the minister has to say. I have heard an explanation, but I have not heard a compelling or cogent repudiation of my argument. I consider that my argument still stands unchallenged. The minister has told the Parliament that there is not enough time to allow proper scrutiny of the regulations. I must agree with the comments made by members of other parties: this is not a satisfactory way in which to attend to business in the Scottish Parliament.
I am minded to press my amendment. I hope that that will send a message to the business managers of the Executive. It is a fundamental issue and, for the sake of the credibility of the Parliament, it ought not to be overlooked.
The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Elder, Dorothy-Grace (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnston, Nick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Lothians) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Mr Alex (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Galbraith, Mr Sam (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
MacLean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, Mr John (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 39, Against 56, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 4 disagreed to.
On Bruce Crawford's earlier point of order, the flurry of activity on the consoles continues. Seven to nine consoles appear to be duff. I am very reluctant indeed to suspend proceedings, and looking to the Opposition whips, I hope that, given the size of the vote, we can just continue. That would be the most acceptable way. Otherwise, there will be some time difficulties.
That does not present any problems for the Conservatives.
Is that all right with you, Mr Crawford?
Yes.
Good. We move on to amendment 5, in the name of Fiona McLeod, which is on its own. As we are losing time, I ask the minister to indulge me. Could you make your remarks in conclusion, instead of having two cuts?
I would be happy to do that.
I call Fiona McLeod to move and speak to amendment 5.
I thought that, with the guillotine, I would not be able to speak to the amendment.
Amendment 5 is in the same vein as amendment 4, and ensures that the Parliament and its committees have a positive role to play in the content of the regulations. It was worrying to hear the deputy minister say in committee:
"The advantage of the negative procedure is that it allows the regulations to be introduced during the recess. Only if a member of the committee objected to their acceptance would the issue have to be discussed further"—[Official Report, Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, 12 June 2000; c 887.]
Those arguments were made about amendment 4, and we all understood them. I cannot believe that a minister would say that it is an advantage to bypass Parliament and its committees. Members surely cannot accept such a claim, and will insist on something so important to Scotland. As every member in this chamber is committed to lifelong learning and social inclusion, we will insist that the matter must be open to the fullest scrutiny and the participation of all elected members.
I move amendment 5.
We are not seeking to bypass Parliament or the committees. We have been quite open about this issue. However, we will simply be unable to meet the deadline if we do not adopt the procedures that have been set down. The negative procedure has been well used and is well known; and, because of the delays and the problems that would arise, this bill is not the place to introduce any change to the procedure, whether it be the affirmative procedure or some novel procedure, which is what Fiona McLeod's amendment proposes.
It is quite appropriate for the Parliament to consider these issues, and if change is required and is what Parliament wishes, we should introduce any change in the appropriate way, having duly considered the matter. However, in relation to this bill, please let us ensure that we trail-blaze in this area, that we are ready for the launch in the autumn and that, in regard to some of our innovative measures such as travel and other expenses, we are able to get on with things and offer people in Scotland the opportunity of 100,000 new ILAs as soon as possible.
Fiona McLeod, do you waive your right to respond?
Yes.
Good.
The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Elder, Dorothy-Grace (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Mr Alex (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Galbraith, Mr Sam (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnston, Nick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
MacLean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Lothians) (Con)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, Mr John (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 29, Against 66, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 5 disagreed to.