Enterprise and Culture Committee, 18 Jan 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Official Report 302KB pdf

---

Individual Learning Accounts

We also want to cover individual learning accounts. My impression from your introductory remarks was that we would have a much shorter discussion and period of questioning on that, and then we would quickly go to the jobs strategy.

There is not much to add to the debate, other than the fact that we are coming closer to producing the strategy.

I will take questions, although not from every member. I do not suspect that every member wants to ask a question on individual learning accounts.

Thank you, convener. I have taken a continuing interest in the subject, not least because I was a member of the Audit Committee when it conducted its inquiry on ILAs. I read with interest the paper circulated to this committee that sets out the Executive's response to the inquiry. I am pleased that the new scheme has been launched.

I have two questions. First, can you indicate why it took quite so long to develop a new scheme? It took almost exactly three years from the suspension of the previous scheme. Successive answers by successive ministers to successive parliamentary questions kept indicating that it would be the next year, then the next year and then the next. That said, I am sure that we would all recognise that it was important to get the scheme right, not least in the light of previous experience.

Secondly, could you give us some sense of what the current relationship is with regard to the schemes and their operation between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom? For the benefit of colleagues, I highlight one of the primary observations that the Audit Committee made on an inherent weakness of the previous arrangements. The initial scheme was closely linked to what was happening at UK level and a sufficient grip had not been taken in Scotland following devolution. Can you assure us that we now have the balance right and that we are continuing to share and learn from the experiences of our UK colleagues, while at the same time being in firmer control of the scheme here?

Susan Deacon's first question was about delay, and it is fair to say that I share some of her frustration about that. However, I was never in any doubt that the reasons for that delay were legitimate. We wanted—and I would hope that this committee and the Audit Committee would support us in our desire—to ensure that the practical lessons of the original ILA scheme were properly taken into account and to consider the reports from Audit Scotland and the Audit Committee to ensure that their recommendations were taken on board, assessed and evaluated before we launched the new scheme. We also had to take into account the parliamentary timetable.

It was important to ensure that the quite significant new systems that have been developed by the Student Awards Agency for Scotland and learndirect Scotland were thoroughly tested before being publicly launched and made available to learning providers. I said—as did my predecessors—that I would launch the new scheme only once I was fully satisfied that all the steps had been completed. We had a launch date in mind which, fortunately perhaps, we did not get round to publishing because, late in the day, the new gateway process of testing the scheme indicated some difficulties. Arguably, we could have gone ahead and it might have been all right, but given past experience I was not prepared to give the green light when I was being told that there were still some difficulties. We therefore delayed the scheme's introduction until I and the accounting officer were satisfied that it was right and proper and that the difficulties that had been highlighted had been ironed out.

We wanted to ensure that learning providers themselves were fully equipped and had the information necessary to allow them to participate. That involved a number of seminars and workshops around the country to get learning providers up to speed by the time that we eventually launched the scheme. There were a number of reasons for the delay, and I hope that the committee will accept that our decisions were made in good faith as we tried to ensure that the lessons from the first scheme were properly learned.

As far as the position in other parts of the United Kingdom is concerned, I can assure Susan Deacon that our scheme was devised in Scotland. It is my understanding that, in England, it has been decided not to have a standalone ILA scheme. No successor is planned in Northern Ireland. There is an ILA Wales scheme, which was launched in the summer of 2003. We will monitor the scheme in Wales, and we are liaising with our colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government to share their experiences.

I note that, 51 weeks ago today, you were before us discussing the same issue. We have come a long way since then, but I will follow up on a couple of points. One of them, which I mentioned on your previous visit, concerned the monitoring procedures. I am pleased to see that the papers that we have in front of us make it clear that the Student Awards Agency for Scotland and the Scottish university for industry have confirmed that they are happy with the monitoring arrangements.

Another point that I raised concerned learning providers and the lessons to be learned from the first round of individual learning accounts. I suggested, not exactly that we constantly look over the learning providers' shoulders, but that it would be useful if there were unannounced visits to learning providers to check that everything that was claimed to be happening was indeed happening. You were unable to respond to that suggestion 51 weeks ago, but we have obviously come a distance since then, so can you tell me whether that will happen so that learning providers will be kept sharply focused?

The first step, which takes place before somebody is admitted to the scheme and becomes a learning provider, is pretty rigorous.

I can see that.

I assure you that quality checks will take place not only at the beginning and that learndirect Scotland will regularly monitor every learning provider's compliance with the rules. I ask Laura Barjonas to clarify whether that will include spot checks.

It will include site visits. Full-time audit staff have been employed to undertake those visits based on the feedback that they get once the learning is taking place.

Will the visits be announced in advance?

They would generally be announced as part of a normal audit programme based on any sense of problems arising. The timescale for going in is short, as required.

I do not want to sound too doom laden, because I am sure that lessons have been learned from the first round of ILAs and that similar problems will not be a major feature of the new system.

For the original scheme, there was a target figure of, I think, 100,000 learners, which was achieved remarkably more quickly than the two years in which the Executive aimed to achieve it. Is there a similar target figure for the new system? I am aware of what the minister referred to as dead weight—that is, people who would have engaged in learning anyway without the incentive of an ILA—within the 100,000. Are you confident that you can eliminate that dead weight as far as possible when the new ILAs get under way?

We are expecting something like up to 50,000 learners this time. I have explained to the committee that there are two steps to the implementation. The first is the ILA scheme that we launched in December, which covers a range of courses but is means tested, which will address the issue of dead weight. The second will be the follow-on scheme, which will relate only to information technology up to level 5 of the Scottish credit and qualifications framework and be made available universally. We aim to reach 50,000 ILA learners by 2006, with the vast majority of them being people on low incomes.

The press release says that the scheme

"has been funded until at least 2008",

and I wondered what significance there was to that three-year period.

It is simply the period of the spending review.

That is, subject to any change of Government in 2007.

I was pleased to see that the Scottish Trades Union Congress supports the new scheme. In England, the Trades Union Congress is a provider of work-based learning; I presume that there is scope within the scheme for similar provision in Scotland.

There is no such STUC provision at present, but the STUC could apply to provide learning, provided that it went through the process and met the quality standards. It might wish to do that in future.

There is certainly nothing to stop it if it meets the criteria, but it does not do so currently.

I have two questions. First, has there been any difficulty in attracting learning providers given the difficulties that you experienced with the earlier system? I am conscious that you have been working to identify providers since May last year. Secondly, have there been any difficulties in ensuring that the learning providers come up to the standards that are being set, which was one of the recommendations in the Audit Committee's report?

There has not generally been any difficulty in recruiting learning providers. Perhaps there was some initial difficulty in the HE institutions, but now that the system is up and running, that might change. Currently, 128 learning providers are formally approved under ILA Scotland. As I said in my answer to Mr Watson, not only is there a stringent and rigorous registration process, the providers have to submit documentary proof of acceptable quality standards and accreditation and learndirect Scotland will authenticate those. There are important rules and procedures that have to be followed and there will also be quality checks.

Providers must be recognised by the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council as being in good standing with the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education; or they must be recognised by the Scottish Further Education Funding Council as being in good standing with Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education; and/or they must be fully accredited through the Scottish quality management system and hold a current SQMS certification; and/or they must be approved as a branded learndirect Scotland learning centre and hold current learndirect Scotland branded status. The Scottish university for industry is responsible for verifying the standards claimed by learning providers directly with the relevant certificating body.

Learning lessons from the first system has been an important part of the work. We need to make sure that stringent conditions are in place. I am confident that learndirect Scotland is well equipped to police the system.

Is that figure of 128 learning providers an increase in the number that were available under the previous scheme?

There are significantly fewer providers because the quality standards are much more restrictive this time round. The maximum number will be lower than the numbers that were potentially able to participate last time round.

I hope that that is a reassurance.

Finally, are there any questions on green jobs? Given that we had a debate on that just before Christmas, I suspect that there is not much of an update on that. Is everybody happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the minister and his colleagues Jane Morgan and Laura Barjonas for a useful session and wish him every success in his forthcoming trip to China.

Thank you very much.