Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1340, in the name of Lewis Macdonald, on skills and continued learning, and on two amendments to the motion.

I am delighted that we are able to mark adult learners week and national learning at work day by debating in the Scottish Parliament the vital issues of skills and continued learning. At the end of this morning's parliamentary business, there will be a tutorial on basic sign language here in our temporary debating chamber. Later today, members may spot learndirect Scotland's mobile learning centre outside the Hub. This afternoon, I shall visit the first fire station in Scotland to take part in national learning at work day and, this evening, I shall present the John Smith award as part of the adult learners week awards in Dundee. That programme of events is designed to highlight the opportunities for adults to continue to learn or to return to learning, which in turn is an important part of our overall strategy to promote skills and lifelong learning.

The amendment in the name of Fiona Hyslop complains that our lifelong learning strategy is somehow separate from our strategy for a smart, successful Scotland. I want to show today that, in fact, the opposite is the case. Growing the economy is our top priority. We have set out clearly what we believe Scotland needs if we are to achieve that. The chief methods of growing the economy, as identified in "A Smart, Successful Scotland: Ambitions for the Enterprise Networks", include improving our global connections, supporting businesses to grow and improving our knowledge and skills. Whatever we do to refresh our enterprise strategy, we will not move away from those fundamental objectives.

We will improve our knowledge and skills in a strategic way, as set out in "Life through Learning; Learning through Life". That strategy, which is precisely what Fiona Hyslop's amendment suggests that we lack, is for delivering knowledge and skills in order to support economic growth.

Our lifelong learning strategy affirms that it is essential to continue to invest in developing the knowledge and skills of every individual, to enhance employability and to equip people for the challenges of the future, thereby allowing them to contribute to Scotland's economic prosperity.

The way in which individuals take up those opportunities and make those contributions will be different in each and every case. For some, it will mean taking the traditional academic route—our world-class universities are ideally placed to support those people. For many others, vocational education and training will offer the best way forward. That is why we are continuing to develop and implement policies that are designed to support vocational skills and learning. The question is not either having world-class universities or being at the cutting edge for training and skills globally. Scotland can have both and that is our aim. For each individual, there is a pathway through the qualifications system that will deliver the greatest value to him or her and ultimately to the economy. Vocational skills are in no sense a second-class way in which to make that contribution.

A skilled work force is a productive one that will enable Scotland to gain and retain a vital competitive edge. If we are to continue to build and retain a skilled work force, we must recognise that adults and young people need the opportunities and encouragement to learn and develop throughout their lives.

At a reception held last night to highlight national autism awareness week, we heard from a young man with Asperger's syndrome who wanted to study medicine but did not get a good enough degree the first time round. He returned to university and got a 2:1, which would have been good enough, but it seems that only the first degree counts. He is understandably disappointed and frustrated by that and he has a lot to offer. Will the minister tell us whether it is within his remit to investigate such cases?

I would not want to comment in Parliament on an individual case. Elaine Smith should take up the case that has been raised with her by writing to the appropriate minister. However, I echo what she says: I, too, have met people who have overcome sometimes significant disabilities in order to make progress, either in the academic sphere, like the young man whom Elaine Smith describes, or in obtaining apprenticeships. It is striking just how many young people have made the effort to do that and have succeeded.

We want all our young people to be work smart from an early age, to enable them to be enterprising and active citizens who can grasp the opportunities that exist for them and come to an early understanding of the demands of the world of work. That is why we put in place the strategy "Determined to Succeed: Enterprise in Education", to which we are committing more than £40 million over three years. Through that strategy, young people at schools across Scotland will have the opportunity to participate in a range of enterprising and entrepreneurial education and work-based vocational learning throughout their school lives, to embed key messages, skills and positive attitudes about the world of work. That will require a real commitment from the education and business communities to work together, sharing good practice and expertise and ensuring that teachers and business people understand each other's needs and share the opportunities.

I pay tribute to the many business people who have already made that commitment, from the Hunter Foundation's £2 million investment in the programme outlined in "Determined to Succeed", to individual decisions to adopt a school and to create relationships such as that between Kerr-McGee and Portlethen Academy, which I witnessed for myself in Aberdeen a couple of weeks ago.

Would the minister care to reflect on the comments made today by the Confederation of British Industry about the publication of a survey that showed that businesses in Scotland invest less in training than those in any other part of the United Kingdom?

Fiona Hyslop makes an important point, which illustrates exactly why we want to engage with the business community. The CBI's interest in matter reflects the willingness of many in the business community to address the issue. That is certainly an area in which we wish to make further progress.

We also wish to make progress in enabling 14 to 16-year-olds to develop vocational skills and to improve their employment prospects, by allowing them to undertake courses in further education colleges as part of the school-based curriculum. For that reason, I am happy to accept the amendment in the name of Murdo Fraser, which emphasises that point, although I should point out that the policy is already contained in the partnership agreement. We are convinced that vocational learning will increase pupil choice by offering school curriculum flexibility. Vocational learning has proved popular with pupils and employers in preparing young people for the transition to the world of work.

Since the election, we have launched our schools and colleges review, putting pupils at the heart of the review and considering with school pupils and others how to improve school-college collaboration further by managing supply and demand and by ensuring that pupil welfare and support are fully taken into account.

Will the minister confirm that what he means by collaboration between schools and further education colleges is that schoolchildren will have a balanced and planned curriculum and that they will not, as the Conservatives suggested in a debate some time ago, simply go entirely into further education colleges without consideration of a balanced curriculum?

As Sylvia Jackson says, it is important that we have that balance and that we recognise that vocational skills development is part of a continuing school education curriculum. We must assist children and young people in making the best prepared and informed choices when they come to leave school.

Careers Scotland clearly has an important role to play. We continue to support the pioneering development and implementation of the Scottish credit and qualifications framework to provide all learners with a transparent and accessible guide to the landscape of qualifications in Scotland. Co-operation between Careers Scotland, learndirect Scotland and Futureskills Scotland is directed towards providing a seamless service to learners that allows them to make informed learning choices and learndirect Scotland has put in place a national database of learning opportunities, which we think will be valuable.

We are also working with the enterprise networks to re-engineer work-based training for young people. We have made good progress with the modern apprenticeship programme—we announced earlier this month that we had passed our target of having 30,000 apprentices in training, two years ahead of schedule.

The modern apprenticeship scheme is to be welcomed, but does the minister acknowledge that those employers who take on the vast majority of modern apprentices are often in areas such as financial services, where there is less need for skills and less of a skills shortage? Standard Life, for example, is laying off 1,000 staff, which has is own implications.

It is worth considering who is going through apprenticeships. The largest category of apprentices is in the construction sector, which no one would dispute is a critical area of need for the Scottish economy. It is important that the apprenticeship training that is provided is responsive to changes in the wider economy and in the demands of employers. The work of the further education sector in responding to the changing demands of employers and in ensuring that needs in the wider economy are met is also important in that respect. It is worth noting the progress that has been made with modern apprenticeships. The best of those programmes have achieved high levels of completion and positive outcomes, but we now want to focus on improvements throughout the range of apprenticeship programmes.

I am glad that the minister mentioned the construction sector, as I wish to highlight one particular problem. I have a constituent in Invergordon who is a mature student. He is a trained marine engineer, but he wants to switch to plumbing. So far, he has been experiencing difficulties in accessing the training. There may be a problem in co-ordination and access for people who would like to acquire skills that are desperately needed.

I agree with Jamie Stone about the importance of being able to meet that demand. The Executive is working with the enterprise networks and the FE sector to ensure that modern apprenticeships continue to respond to needs and that they improve their response where needs have not yet been met.

The Executive is also working to improve education in the workplace through the Scottish union learning fund. I was delighted last month to launch a round 4 project, led by ASLEF and the rail unions, and, later this week, I will visit a learning day, organised by Unison, towards the end of one of its union learning programmes. That method of supporting learning has allowed us to use trade unions' membership, connections and credibility in the workplace. In many cases, trade unions have recruited employers to the learning process. That is an important contribution. The unions are particularly interested in the introduction in Scotland of individual learning accounts, which will be available from this summer. ILAs are designed to help new learners into learning and to help people to return to learning.

Training and development are also crucial for small businesses. The Executive has begun to pilot business learning accounts to encourage more small businesses to train and develop their staff and we have made funding available for training access points for small companies. We are working jointly with UK colleagues to develop the skills for business network. That will allow all our employers the opportunity to feed into the sector skills councils, which determine the content of apprenticeship programmes. I spoke to the Sector Skills Development Agency before its board meeting in Glasgow on Tuesday and it was clear that it has a strong commitment to the particular needs of the Scottish economy.

With a national learning at work day, in adult learners week, at which people throughout the country can celebrate learning and try out new skills, there is much that we can continue to develop and that will continue to bring real benefits for individuals and for the wider economy.

The Allander series lecture by James Heckman on skills policies last week was particularly well attended by representatives of the Executive parties. Did the Executive learn any particular lessons from that and does it have any plans to learn more from Heckman's work?

I was not at the lecture, but a number of colleagues were. As with all the lectures in the Allander series, I understand that that one was thought provoking and useful. There is clearly a debate to be had. The Executive recognises the importance of early-years skills and early-years training, but we also recognise the urgent necessity for Scotland to address skills issues with its existing adult population, as with the existing school-leaving population. The issue is not about concentrating on one generation, but about providing support for skills across the board. Futureskills Scotland is doing good work in identifying the skills gaps in the labour market and in working with the sector skills councils and other training providers to ensure that those skills gaps are filled.

The Executive wants to be ambitious for Scotland and to ensure that our policies work hard to maximise the contributions that individuals can make. However, we also want to ensure that we get the most out of our people in order to grow our economy, strengthen social justice and create a sustainable future for Scotland in the 21^st century. I believe—and my colleagues are clear—that the wide agenda of knowledge and skills is critical to achieving that.

I move,

That the Parliament supports Scottish Executive initiatives, such as the Scottish Union Learning Fund, the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework and the Determined to Succeed programme, to ensure the provision of effective skills and learning opportunities that will allow more people to play a full and productive role in the workplace and in the community; recognises the vital contribution that skills and learning make in helping to stimulate sustainable economic growth and to close the opportunity gap, and congratulates all those involved in the Modern Apprenticeship programme, which has exceeded its target of having 30,000 apprentices in training two years ahead of schedule.

I start by quoting an absent friend, Jim Wallace, the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning. I am sure that he is somewhere else today.

That is well observed.

It is kind of obvious.

Jim Wallace and I attended an important meeting at a conference in Edinburgh last week about the future of and ambitions for the city. He commented that, although we would like to be ambitious for Edinburgh and for Scotland, ambition without an agenda is a pipe dream. That is my concern in relation to this debate and the Scottish National Party has framed its amendment on that basis. Our problem is that, although we welcome the debate, we think that it fails to face up to the real skills challenges in Scotland and that it is hampered by the lack of an agenda or national skills strategy.

In 1999, the Executive consulted on a skills strategy for a competitive Scotland. Indeed, Henry McLeish led a debate on skills.

Does Fiona Hyslop accept that "Life through Learning; Learning through Life" places a great deal of emphasis on the skills agenda and constitutes a strategy that links skills to the wider economic strategy that the Executive has set out?

It is interesting that the minister sets so much store by the content of that document. Why is it that, in the 13 months of the second session of the Parliament, this is the first debate on skills—or, indeed, on higher or further education—that has been led by the Executive in its parliamentary time? As we know, the Executive takes the vast majority of parliamentary time.

In the debate in 1999, Henry McLeish said that, at that point, all the Executive was doing was consulting on an action plan. Little has been done since then. We have a dossier—not a strategy—which is drowning us in descriptors and data, welcome as they may be.

Absent from the debate so far, and certainly from the minister's speech, has been mention of a significant contribution by the Parliament. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's report on its lifelong learning inquiry in the previous session was an important contribution to the debate. It had meaningful and achievable recommendations and I regret that the minister did not mention it and, indeed, that the motion does not refer to it. Some of the recommendations have been acted on, but only belatedly. For example, the lifelong learning forum recommended by the committee was established only in December 2003 and, to date, questions about its membership, the frequency of its meetings and the progress that it has made have been met with little information.

Economic growth is supposed to be the number 1 priority, but we know that the Executive is prepared to work only as a dependant within the devolution settlement and so has levers of power only to tinker with the supply side. Against that background, the absence of a skills strategy will be felt even more acutely.

We should recognise that the debate is taking place in the context of adult learners week, but that should be the subject of a members' business debate. Indeed, I notice that Bill Butler, who is getting a reputation for lodging good motions for topics for members' business debates, has lodged one on the subject. I welcome the fact that the minister will be visiting a fire station this afternoon. I hope that he takes the opportunity to discuss with firemen their real concerns about the current dispute and about safety conditions in the public service.

We must recognise that Scotland's future economic success lies with having a high-skill, high-value work force. However, we must marry that with the fact that, unless we alter our demographics, we will continue to have an aging population. We need to consider whether we plan for decline or halt the decline. That is a real challenge and my colleague Jim Mather will cover the issue later.

Important things are happening. If it can live up to its spin, the fresh talent initiative—whereby skilled people from abroad are invited to come and work in Scotland—is one way forward. It can be matched by the use of the excellent skills and contributions of asylum seekers, the majority of whom stay on to become refugees.

The SNP supports a reduction in class sizes in order to improve basic skills. The late intervention of Professor Heckman in our on-going debate on early intervention is very welcome. I note the fact that it seems to take an American male economist to argue what many female professionals and politicians from all parties have long been saying in Scotland before anyone listens: invest early and reap the rewards for individuals, parents and society in spades later on. I am pleased that the Education Committee, under the direction of our convener, Robert Brown, will be examining early intervention later this year. Population pressures mean that rewarding nursery nurses properly through a national settlement is even more imperative. We must value those who nurture cognitive and non-cognitive development skills at home, because, as Professor Heckman has recognised, that input becomes so important at a later date.

We need to support the Scottish credit and qualifications framework and, rather than blundering into confrontation, we need to encourage collaboration between schools, further education and higher education. The SCQF has attracted international envy. It can meaningfully and materially make a difference, but it needs a cultural evaluation of skills, higher education and further education.

So far, Fiona Hyslop has taken sideswipes about firemen and nursery nurses and has said that Jim Mather will be telling us about population growth—I look forward to that enormously. Could we please have some serious, concrete policies from the SNP? What would the SNP do? We on the Executive side are doing a lot, so what would the SNP do differently and better? I ask Fiona Hyslop to outline that clearly and succinctly.

I am just coming on to the relationship between HE, FE and schools, which is essential. I have mentioned smaller class sizes and the importance of early intervention in relation to skills and I have talked about the Scottish credit and qualifications framework. That framework can operate only in a climate of collaboration. I am afraid that the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, who is from Jamie Stone's party, has created a climate of confrontation between universities and FE colleges, which is undesirable. That is exactly the sort of thing that—

Come on—give us some policies.

We would want to have co-operation between FE and HE. We would expand access to further education for those who need it. We are concerned that universities are full. The expansion of universities has, in many ways, been contributed to by an expansion of the middle classes. Further education represents the foundations for ensuring added value in the skilled work force and child care policies are required to ensure that people can access it.

Let me deal with one of the issues that the Government can do something about. A university principal recently said to me that a Government should provide legislative frameworks, not legislative cages. The Executive could well learn that lesson in the skills and education debate. The proposal to have Scottish tertiary education providers—STEPS—is an example of where Government policy is inappropriate. Steps is a disbanded pop group; it should not be the framework for taking us forward on an agenda through which we must build contacts between universities and business. We are putting institutions into a cage, which will prevent them from having the independence that they require to attract global investment and to facilitate the research that they need to do in order to develop business.

Could Ms Hyslop outline the respects in which she believes universities stand to lose academic independence and choice under the proposals that are being consulted on?

Nothing that the minister has said publicly would lead me to believe that they will. However, what I have read in the draft Tertiary Education (Funding etc) (Scotland) Bill and what I have been told directly by university principals within the past 10 days indicate that the bill will unnecessarily provide for ministerial intervention, comparable to the powers under the School Education (Ministerial Powers and Independent Schools) (Scotland) Bill. That would restrict the direction of courses and the control over what courses can and should be run. I say that in the context of the forthcoming bill, not of statements that the minister has made.

I will now deal with vocational qualifications. In August 2003, the SNP suggested that 14-year-olds should have access to further education teaching. I note that the Conservatives refer to that policy in their amendment and that they mentioned it in their conference of October last year. The proposal is also in the partnership agreement. We must recognise the vital role of the General Teaching Council for Scotland. However, it is regrettable that the Executive has been slow to consult and be guided by the GTCS. I refer to the abolition of school codes, for example. If we want FE lectures in schools, to help 14 and 15-year-olds, we have to take the GTCS with us.

I turn now to skills, skills gaps and skills shortages. The number of vacancies in Scotland has increased by 7 per cent and the number of gaps that are hard to fill has increased by 5 per cent in one year. We must recognise what those skills gaps are. Futureskills Scotland has stated that the commonly lacking skills are planning and organising, problem solving, customer handling, teamworking and oral communication.

I recognise that we need construction workers and people with languages—particularly given the recent accession of new member states to the European Union—but, if we are to promote a meaningful, high-value, high-wage and high-skilled economy for the future, we cannot forecast here and now what skills will be needed. Professor Heckman's work and the recommendations from Futureskills Scotland of what is required lead us to believe that knowledge of how to learn and how to develop skills will, in the future, be as important as the actual skills themselves.

Workplace learning is vital as part of the culture of continuous improvement and skills change and development. The message from a West Lothian Chamber of Commerce meeting that I attended last week was that the employers wanted young people and staff who knew how to learn and who wanted to learn, which would enable employers to train them with the necessary skills. The ideas of early intervention and the programme outlined in "Determined to Succeed" might help with that, but what is vital is a framework of knowledge of how to learn. The statistics show that the majority of training is provided by external training companies, rather than by colleges. We need to address that issue.

Many things can and should be done. We should be using the skills of the asylum seekers who want to stay and work in Scotland. We should recognise the fact that skills gaps are often in the soft skills and not necessarily in the hard skills. We should also reflect on the need for a national spatial strategy on skills. The issues facing Glasgow are quite different from those facing the Lothians. In the Lothians, there are skills shortages in the form of a lack of people. In Glasgow, there is not necessarily a lack of people; rather, the skills gap needs addressed there. That must be reflected in policies for investment, which should be covered by the national strategy that we want to be developed. West Lothian College has the fastest-growing student population in Scotland—a nation with a falling population—and is turning away thousands of students, frustrating the employers who need the skills now.

That is what we mean when we say that we need a national skills strategy. It is about addressing the immediate issues, forecasting what we need in the longer term and ensuring that all the Government agencies, schools and HE and FE institutions work together to deliver that strategy.

Will Fiona Hyslop give way on that point?

I am about to finish.

The member is in her last minute, I am afraid.

I welcome the opportunity to explore those issues, some of which are contentious—we must face up to the age issue, in particular. I look forward to the Executive returning to the chamber to debate its national skills strategy in the future.

I move amendment S2M-1340.1, to leave out from "supports" to end and insert:

"regrets the absence of a national skills and lifelong learning strategy from the Scottish Executive as part of the Smart, Successful Scotland policy; recognises the contribution of the Scottish Union Learning Fund, the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework, the Determined to Succeed programme and the Modern Apprenticeship programme, but notes that these individual elements by themselves will not deliver the appropriate skills and continued learning requirements for Scotland in the 21st century."

I welcome this morning's opportunity to debate the importance of skills and learning to the Scottish economy. The Executive's motion is correct to identify

"the vital contribution that skills and learning make in helping to stimulate sustainable economic growth and to close the opportunity gap".

If we are to have a successful economy, we need a properly trained work force. An important element in that is the modern apprenticeship scheme, which, as the motion says, has been a tremendous success. As I am sure the minister will wish to acknowledge, that scheme was established by a Conservative Government, back in 1994.

Notwithstanding the progress that has been made, we still have skills shortages and skills gaps in particular areas. The survey of employers that was carried out by Futureskills Scotland in November 2003 contains some immensely useful information on the views of Scotland's wealth creators. According to the survey, one in four workplaces reported a skills gap. Skills gaps affect 187,000 employers in Scotland, or 9 per cent of the entire work force. Worryingly, just under half of workplaces that were recruiting school leavers thought that they were well prepared for work in terms of their core skills. The good news is that that figure rises to 74 per cent for FE colleges and to 82 per cent for university leavers.

Of particular concern to employers is the lack of soft skills, to which Fiona Hyslop referred in her speech. By soft skills, the survey meant planning, problem solving, customer handling and team working. All too often, employers find that school leavers are ill equipped with those soft skills. Certainly, most of the employers to whom I speak in my role as my party's enterprise spokesman are looking for school leavers to have basic skills such as the ability to read, write, count, turn up on time in the morning and communicate with customers and other employees in more than just a series of grunts. We also need to remember that 20 per cent of the Scottish work force has no qualifications at all. That is a major gap that needs to be filled if we are meet our economic potential.

If we are to improve the situation—as we must—the role of the further education colleges in Scotland must be central, and I was pleased to hear the minister refer to that in his remarks. I had the pleasure of sharing a platform with speakers from the Association of Scottish Colleges and the Federation of Small Businesses at the Scottish Conservative conference in Dundee last weekend—and a highly successful fringe meeting it was too. There is no doubt that the 46 further education colleges in Scotland, which deliver education, training and skills to more than 500,000 people every year, are the essential component in delivering skills. The good news is that enrolments to colleges are on the way up and we are seeing increasingly large numbers of enrolments from women, the over-25s and those accessing courses part time.

Our colleges are responsive to the economy's needs: they help to fill the skills gap by providing courses in areas such as engineering and construction, in which we know that there is demand for jobs. One anecdote comes to mind: we always hear that it is impossible for anyone who lives in a Scottish city to get a plumber, but such has been the publicity about plumbers allegedly earning £50,000 a year that all the plumbing courses are oversubscribed. The market works in response to such situations.

I know from visiting colleges in my region that the standard of education that they provide is high. I was delighted to see last week that Lauder College in Dunfermline was the subject of a superb report from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, and I pay tribute to the staff and students whose work helped to achieve that. I have also visited Glenrothes College—which is shortly to merge with Fife College of Further and Higher Education—and Perth College, which provides a huge variety of courses and is an academic partner of the UHI Millennium Institute. Perth College has a number of interesting initiatives. It has an air training centre, and students from all over the world, including a large number of students from the middle east, come to Perth to learn civil aviation, which makes an important contribution to the local economy. I have also been to Angus College in Arbroath. Each of those colleges is a local college, serving its local community and providing an ever-higher standard of access to further and vocational education.

At the moment, it is Scottish Enterprise's responsibility to deliver skills and training. In the past, I have suggested that responsibility should be passed directly to the FE sector, which in practice delivers most of the courses. That would surely cut out a tier of bureaucracy and cost and would allow more resources to be allocated to front-line services. I put that point to the First Minister at First Minister's question time on 20 November last year. He replied:

"That is not a ridiculous suggestion and I am sure it deserves debate."—[Official Report, 20 November 2003; c 3476.]

I put the same question to Lewis Macdonald at question time on 25 March this year. He replied:

"I am surprised to hear Murdo Fraser suggest that. We include the enterprise networks in the design and management of apprenticeships precisely because of their understanding of the industrial sectors for which we are training people. All of us who believe that business should influence the training of apprentices, and that such training should meet the needs of the real economy, want to see a continued link between the enterprise networks, the private sector and further education colleges in the delivery of apprenticeship training."—[Official Report, 25 March 2004; c 7119.]

All of us believe that, except, it seems, the First Minister, so perhaps the minister would like to clarify what exactly the Executive's policy on the matter is.

Jack McConnell was, of course, right to say that such matters are worthy of debate. Will Murdo Fraser tell us, as his contribution to the debate, what he would do instead of using the enterprise networks to ensure that training providers are responsive to the business community's needs?

I am grateful to the minister for trying to dig himself out of that hole, because the answer is perfectly simple. FE colleges are already extremely responsive to the needs of the businesses in their communities, as I am sure the minister recognises. The point is that, because they deliver the service at the coalface, they should be responsible for it. Do we need to involve the enterprise networks in taking such strategic decisions and managing the budget?

I accept that the colleges are closely in touch with business, but does Murdo Fraser agree that, in many cases, there are difficulties with colleges being as well-attuned to business needs as they ought to be and that there is a case for having an organisation, agency or some other mechanism to ensure that the expertise in business is joined with that in colleges to their mutual advantage? That is the issue with which Murdo Fraser has to deal.

That is an interesting debating point from Robert Brown, but I am not convinced that the local enterprise networks are more in tune with the needs of local business than the further education colleges are. However, I am delighted that we are having a debate on the matter, which is what the First Minister said we should have. No doubt we can develop the point further in future.

I was pleased to hear from the minister that the Executive will accept the Conservative amendment. Members will be aware that, in the past, we have spoken up for our Conservative policy of allowing 14 and 15-year-olds greater access to vocational training at further education colleges. A number of such schemes operate already, including one at Angus College, which I have seen in operation. It appears to have been a great success, so the Conservatives would like such opportunities to be increased. That would create a win-win situation, because we have far too many youngsters at school who are disengaged from academic subjects. As we know, we have a high truancy rate and high levels of disruption in the classroom—indeed, I believe that the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers is launching a new campaign about indiscipline in schools today.

I am not suggesting for a minute that greater access to vocational education is the solution to all problems of indiscipline, nor am I suggesting that we should dump all pupils who cause problems in FE colleges, but the simple fact of the matter is that we have pupils who are not interested in academic subjects but who would engage with a more vocational type of learning. Why not give such pupils the opportunity to access more vocational training at FE colleges? That has been tried in a number of pilot schemes, in which pupils are on day release. When I visited Angus College, I saw that the pilot scheme was successful: those pupils who engaged with it had a much higher attendance rate, and their attendance rate at school improved considerably—

Will Murdo Fraser give way?

I will in a second.

He is in his last minute, Mr Stone.

My apologies.

Saved.

I doubt it.

The school attendance rate of pupils in the scheme improved considerably because of the reward of going to college daily.

Our proposal would benefit those in school who want to engage in academic subjects and would benefit the youngsters who accessed the vocational training, because it would keep them engaged with education and ensure that they left formal education at 16 not without qualifications, as so many of them do at present, but with a first step on the ladder towards employment. It would also, of course, be good for the economy. I am pleased to hear that the Executive supports the proposal, and I hope that it will roll out such programmes and develop them further.

I welcome the Executive's motion. We require an educated and skilful work force if the Scottish economy is to grow, and that growth will be enhanced if increasing numbers of 14 and 15-year-olds are able to develop vocational skills within the FE sector.

I move amendment S2M-1340.2, to insert after "gap,":

"urges the Scottish Executive to increase the opportunity for school pupils across Scotland to access courses in further education colleges from the age of 14,".

I had the pleasure of speaking at the conference of the Borders Adult Learner and Students Association in Galashiels two Saturdays ago, at which people from all backgrounds and walks of life and of all ages gathered to discuss how to reduce the barriers to accessing adult learning opportunities in the Borders. Learning throughout life is not only about people taking a more active part in the local and national economy, on which I will touch in most of my comments today and which is the subject of the debate, but about self-fulfilment, overcoming personal issues and challenges and overcoming lack of confidence or low self-esteem. Some of the conference delegates with significant physical disabilities were an inspiration to all in having overcome the challenges that they had overcome to access learning opportunities.

Learning, and hence education, is one of the surest ways of making someone free and, as a Liberal, I am delighted that we place such an emphasis on learning and skills. However, I will direct my remarks to the impact of learning opportunities on making people active in the economy, on which the Liberal Democrats in the Parliament have a good and consistent a record.

I cannot do that without mentioning a disturbing development in learning in my constituency: Heriot-Watt University's proposal to withdraw the school of textiles and design from Galashiels and relocate it to the Riccarton campus, just outside Edinburgh. It will not surprise members to hear that I am opposed to that, and I am chairing the local group of new ways partners—Scottish Borders Council, Scottish Enterprise Borders, Eildon Housing Association, NHS Borders and others. I am working with Heriot-Watt University and Borders College to seek alternative proposals that would provide strong academic arguments for the Netherdale campus to be developed and grown and which would mean that the campus is financially sustainable. The long-planned joint development between Heriot-Watt and Borders College is a practical and tangible example of the close relationship that we have already discussed in the debate. It could be the basis for a fit-for-purpose centre of excellence for Scotland in textiles and fashion, which are still our seventh-largest export, even after years of trouble within the industry, and the nucleus of a stronger higher and further education platform for the Borders that brings in providers from other universities throughout Scotland and greater opportunities.

The campus is important for that ambition, because it would establish a base outside the immediate city region of Edinburgh. Last Monday, we discussed with Fiona Hyslop the relationship between the Edinburgh city region and the areas immediately outside it. The base would be linked directly to Edinburgh by a new rail link. We would be able to rebuild the brand of the Scottish College of Textiles, which was developed over nearly 130 years in the Borders but which, unfortunately, Heriot-Watt University has undermined. It is going to be a busy summer.

I return to the subject of the debate. Higher and further education opportunities are at the heart of the economic strategies of the Borders and Midlothian—the area that I represent—and of Scotland as a whole. However, they are not the sole source of developing skills; often the most effective way to develop skills is through direct practical learning experience with employers and colleagues. Time does not permit me to develop that point further, so I will limit my comments to only one aspect.

Despite Midlothian's modest size, it plays a special role in the region's economy. It is a centre for the global biotechnology revolution with an international reputation for research, development and production and it has a growing manufacturing base. However, both the heart of its problem and the key to its success are its people and their skills. Out-migration of young people seeking wider skills, experience and employment opportunities is characteristic of Midlothian, the Borders and, to an extent, Scotland as a whole.

What steps is Jeremy Purvis advocating that we take to retain skilled people in Scotland, and the Borders in particular, and what confidence does he have that they will work?

I have absolute confidence. There are positives in Midlothian and the Borders, such as the high entrepreneurialism rate, especially among women, the extremely high standard of schools and the economic strategies of Midlothian and the Borders, which have at their core developing the right skills for the work force, adult learning, getting more people into the labour market and developing wider management and information and communication technology skills. That answers Jim Mather's point precisely.

It is important that when there is growth in the population of Scotland, my area can take advantage of it. The growth figures announced this week will make depressing reading for my friend Jim Mather, who has the odd economic philosophy that only by gaining independence will the Scottish male become more virile and the population grow. The latest figures challenge that.

As somebody who knows these things, I have to tell Jeremy Purvis that the size of a population is determined by the number of women, not the number of men.

I defer to Fiona Hyslop's practical experience in that regard.

I am pleased about the work of the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and the strong emphasis on practical, on-the-ground work in the partnership agreement. That has included: creating apprenticeships for 30,000 people; creating vocational opportunities in and out of school settings for 14 to 16-year-olds; increasing child care provision to allow parents to access learning opportunities, particularly in rural areas where transport issues do not help the situation; and equipping more and more libraries, especially in rural areas, with computers to allow people to access local employment opportunities and provide everyone from silver surfers to teenage youth groups with information on learning.

Something close to my heart as a Liberal Democrat is the radical increase in work on the enterprise in schools agenda. On Tuesday I met the impressive person who is implementing the agenda and who is looking forward to it being rolled out throughout Scotland. I am looking forward to it becoming live in Midlothian and the Borders, because I am convinced that it will work and that it will help to address some of the underlying issues of out-migration in those areas. The Shell LiveWIRE entrepreneur of the year, who is based in Peebles in my constituency, was inspired as a pupil by Tom Farmer of Kwik-Fit fame. The £40 million initiative on enterprise in schools, which will include annual enterprise activities from primary 1 to secondary 6 and hands-on experience of business and enterprise for pupils in every school in Scotland with partnerships with local businesses, is real and tangible and will work not because it is an Executive policy but because it deals with individuals. While we are opening up opportunities for adult learning and removing the barriers to learning opportunities, it is fitting that in adult learners week the emphasis will be on young people and intervention at the earliest age, which will ensure success for the long term.

As ever, it falls to the Greens to ensure that the issue of environmental sustainability is brought to the chamber. Perhaps others cannot see where it might fit into a debate on skills and continued learning, but we have long said that sustainability should be at the heart of education policy and the same is true for policy on continued learning and the development of skills for work, as well as for work itself.

We are talking about the importance of the development of skills that have broad application such as: the development of independent thought and compassion; the ability to understand and address complex issues, especially in relation to society's interaction with natural systems; an understanding of the vital links that join us all with the natural world; and a sense of citizenship and responsibility. I commend organisations such as WWF Scotland for their work. WWF Scotland has developed a fascinating set of ideas and tools on sustainability in learning, including something that it has called "Linkingthinking", which is designed to help both educators and learners to develop some of the skills that I have just mentioned and which, in the words of WWF

"aims to provide a learning and teaching resource that encourages a fresh and highly relevant way of looking at the world."

Would Shiona Baird care to tell us where the documentation and the policies to which the minister referred are deficient in meeting those aspirations?

The minister's motion talks about stimulating sustainable economic growth, but I have not heard any reference to anything that could be classed as remotely close to sustainability in the true sense of the word, on which I will expand later.

The Greens support whole-heartedly the kind of approach that WWF Scotland is taking, because it is vital if we are to address serious environmental concerns such as climate change, which is the nub of the issue. As well as the broader skills that should run through all continued learning, more specific skills can and must be developed if we are to move towards greater sustainability. We await eagerly the announcement of the green jobs strategy, which should see progress towards the development of a large number of jobs in renewable energy, reuse and recycling.

If Scotland were to take on a zero-waste policy, we would see a proliferation of exciting and innovative skills in tertiary education, skills training and the workplace. The commitment by our Government to something so radical and yet so practical would send a signal to those in the design and manufacturing industries that they could go full steam ahead with the highly creative process of designing and developing new environmentally sustainable materials and products without the waste that is produced currently.

We have seen the demise of heavy industry in Scotland, but there is now the prospect of a renaissance in cleaner, greener industries. Scotland is world renowned for its engineering expertise, particularly in ship building and the oil industry, and the skills that those work forces have developed over the years must not be lost. The Greens are not the first to suggest that those men and women have highly transferable skills for which the fledgling renewable energy industries are crying out. The Executive must do all that it can to ensure the creation of a strong skills base for the renewable energy industry and to enable workers to transfer their skills as smoothly and painlessly as possible. We owe that to the workers and to the future sustainability of Scotland's industry in all senses.

In an intervention in a different debate, one of the member's colleagues suggested that it is Green party policy to renationalise all Scotland's utilities. Would that policy be extended to renewable energy companies?

Renewable energy is one of the major utilities in the sense of energy transmission. That was what my colleague referred to, rather than industries such as those that create renewable devices, which I think is what Jeremy Purvis is getting at.

I am concerned by the continuing occupational segregation in the modern apprenticeship scheme, with its consequent impact on pay and equalities. The Executive must be concerned by the segregation in the scheme between traditionally male apprenticeships and non-traditional female ones. The under-representation of ethnic minority groups is equally unacceptable. The Executive must address those issues if it is serious about closing the pay and opportunities gap, otherwise we will be wasting a valuable human resource at a time when industry and business need a skilled and flexible work force.

The ideas that were embodied in the individual learning accounts scheme, which was part of the Executive's and the UK Government's lifelong learning strategy, must be applied throughout the education sector, particularly the further education sector. Before I was elected as an MSP, I took advantage of the scheme and had an individual learning account. People could use them to further their skills through computer courses—I did courses on Excel and a database programme—or to facilitate leisure activities and hobbies, to learn a language or to do Indian head massage. Whatever people wanted, if a course was provided, they could do it. The scheme embodied the type of education system that we need, particularly if it is to be based on a lifelong learning strategy. I want to live in a society in which people have access to education throughout their lives and for all sorts of purposes.

One of the problems with the individual learning accounts scheme reflected the present culture in education. Three quarters of the bodies that registered as training providers were in the private sector and two thirds of them involved only 10 or fewer people in training. Of course, the scheme was closed down, with the suspicion that fraud was taking place. A huge shift has occurred in the delivery of further education and training through the courses that the minister outlined because 43 colleges in Scotland now have a business, fast-buck or make-money agenda—they simply aim to attract money. Because FE colleges are completely business oriented, colleges compete with one another for money, particularly the money that is ring fenced for the initiatives that the minister outlined. The competition means that colleges do not collaborate or work together, but instead undercut one another in providing the courses that the minister talked about, which aim to fill the skills gap that the minister also mentioned. That is not a productive way forward for education, skills and lifelong learning.

At the centre of the issue is the structure of FE colleges, which are now no more than businesses, rather than education providers for the entire population. As part of the Thatcherite agenda, the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 was introduced, which deemed that 50 per cent of the board members of an FE college must be people from local businesses. There is no stipulation that members of the community must be involved and only one member of the academic staff and one member of the support staff must be involved. Communities must be involved. Young people, people who want to retrain and people who just want education for education's sake must have access to FE colleges, but they do not have a say in their running. Because it is not stipulated in the 1992 act that communities must have a say, boards take decisions about learning programmes that affect whole communities and which result in cuts or campus changes without taking cognisance of what the local community thinks. Examples of that are the Scottish Agricultural College in Ayr and the cuts that are being made at the Benbecula centre, an issue on which all members have been lobbied. The interests of the local community are not represented on FE college boards.

The Scottish Executive must repeal the 1992 act and introduce a different structure. If it does not, how will courses be delivered? The principals and boards do not deliver courses; they are delivered by the academic and support staff, particularly the academic staff. At present, boards in the FE sector are on a collision course with academic staff, whom the Executive needs to deliver the services as part of the agenda that has been set. Since 1992, there have been both compulsory and voluntary redundancies from the Borders to Aberdeen. Next week, the board of Coatbridge College will withdraw the contract of every full-time member of staff and issue new contracts with worse conditions. That is no way to motivate the people whom the Executive needs to deliver courses.

The structure of further education must be changed—it must be inclusive and should not be based only on a narrow business agenda. If we want the type of Scotland that the Executive is talking about, communities must have a say and those who work in colleges must be better represented on the boards. If the Executive does not make changes, it will have all sorts of difficulties in trying to deliver the bright new Scotland that the minister spoke about.

A key theme of the minister's speech was that growing the economy is the Scottish Executive's top priority. He said that investing in our people is crucial if we are to meet that goal. Like other members, I do not disagree with either the goal or the importance of the development of skills as a means of achieving it. However, we should disregard Fiona Hyslop's call for yet another strategy document, especially if it were to contain some of the platitudes that she trotted out this morning.

We must be much clearer about what we mean by skills. All too often, when people talk about skills, it turns out they are using the term as a proxy for qualifications, but the two are not identical. Thanks to Mrs Thatcher, thousands of skilled manufacturing jobs were lost in Scotland. The shipyards and engineering industries supplied a range of employment opportunities that are no longer available for my constituents in Clydebank.

I have no doubt that more young people are qualified to enter higher education than was the case 20 or 30 years ago. The qualifications that they now obtain are more numerous and, on the face of it, at a higher level, but looking at qualifications could give a misleading impression of the skills level in the work force as a whole. Because we encourage greater participation in education, particularly higher education, it is assumed that the work force has become more skilled, but boosting the supply of more highly educated or trained employees will not of itself necessarily act as the catalyst for enhanced productivity and competitiveness.

It is suggested that a combination of hard skills, such as numeracy and competence in the use of information technology, and soft skills, such as team working and communication, is vital. A great deal of effort has gone into designing those skills into educational programmes, but the strong drive towards accreditation of skills within formal qualifications disguises the fact that many of the key skills that are supposedly prized by employers are not readily amenable to assessment through written examination. A closer examination shows that, while there has been an expansion of high- skill, high-wage, high value-added work at the top end of the labour market, at the bottom end, the proportion of people in low-paid, low-skilled, low value-added employment remains stubbornly high in Scotland. Particularly in the service sector, many jobs have been simplified to the point at which workers are expected to follow an established set of routines and operations, with little autonomy or initiative expected or tolerated. For example, call centre workers are expected to give programmed responses to each mapped-out inquiry in an environment in which every action is closely monitored, measured and recorded.

The drive for control is not limited to the performance of set tasks. These days, in the retail sector and in many other areas of work, the way that employees look, and personal attributes, such as dress, accent and manner, are central to recruitment and training practices. Notions of skill in that context have been devalued, whereas in traditional industries, such as shipbuilding and engineering, skills carried with them real market power and some measure of personal discretion over one's work. Too many employers claim to want skilled people but are unwilling to concede material benefits, whether in the form of a wage premium or increased status in the occupational hierarchy.

In the past, responsibility for developing skills lay mainly with the employer, with educators playing an important but supporting role. Now, employers complain bitterly that there is no ready supply of suitable potential employees—who are educated and trained at public expense—but too many employers take no responsibility at all for developing or even properly utilising the skills of their existing work force.

Employers' reluctance to move from the low-skill, low value-added sector and instead drive up skills and productivity in Scotland is not in their own best interest. Some of them, it appears, are happier to consider outsourcing work to parts of the world where labour is cheaper, rather than accept the role that they should play in developing the potential of the human capital of Scotland.

The progress that is being made in taking forward initiatives on the skills base is admirable, especially the progress on the modern apprenticeship scheme. I applaud the work that has been done by the Government. However, more schemes are not the answer on their own. We need economic growth, which requires a culture change throughout Scotland's business community. Our most successful company, the Royal Bank of Scotland, is leading the way by recognising the importance of the skills of its work force in ensuring its continued business success.

We need organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors to take more responsibility for developing their workers' skills, to value more highly their employees' skills, to give their employees opportunities to use those skills to the full, and to gear their activities towards the high-skill, high value-added end of the market, rather than the low-skill, low value-added end of the market.

Business and Government must do more for those who are presently excluded from employment, as well as for employees. For nearly 10 years I have been an unpaid director of the Wise Group, which has a successful track record in getting unemployed people into work. The fact that unemployment is much lower than it was 10 years ago is welcome, but the barriers that face too many of our people in securing jobs and in maintaining themselves in employment have not come down.

We can and must do more if we are to narrow the opportunity gap that is a blight on our nation. That will require joined-up thinking followed by co-ordinated action to achieve what we all want—a prosperous, inclusive Scotland in which people fulfil their potential and are appropriately rewarded. That is not just a task for Government; business has to play its role, and we have to hold it to account, as we hold Government to account.

I apologise to the chamber and the minister as I had transport difficulties this morning, hence my lateness.

As others have said, adult learners represent a wide range of people in age, ability and ambition. Some of them want to retrain to enter other professions, as I did at 40. When I meet adult learners, I see the difficulties that I faced in looking after a family at the same time as retraining. Some people simply want to get on to the education ladder for the first time, having missed out. I was on a panel that faced questions at an interesting meeting during the 100 learners' voices event this week, at which the issue was raised of adults with undiagnosed dyslexia who missed the boat first time round at school and who did not get to college. When the minister sums up the debate, I would like him to address the problem of diagnosing adults with learning difficulties. Adults with such difficulties who are diagnosed later in life find out that they were not really stupid at all; they just have problems that were not diagnosed.

People sometimes undertake adult learning to learn to tap dance. Whatever they do, it makes them happier, cheerier people. I have made the Presiding Officer smile; that is lovely. I am not going to make Jeremy Purvis smile in a moment. I heard all his stuff about Heriot-Watt University, which was all very worthy, but his colleague Jim Wallace, the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, told me that he will not lift a finger to help Heriot-Watt if it has financial difficulties.

I anticipated that Christine Grahame would make such a comment, since I read the same in a headline in the local papers a couple of weeks ago. Can she indicate whether there are any circumstances in which she would work with the constituency member and the local agencies to challenge some of the Heriot-Watt assumptions to try to achieve a solution, rather than always seek the negative side of every single issue?

Oh dear, dear, dear, dear. I am quite happy to work with members. In fact, for at least five years I have worked with people from all parties to achieve a Borders railway. That railway will lead to major regeneration of the Borders economy; it is not simply a transport issue. Jeremy Purvis is being rather prickly.

I agree that Borderers have skills, but they are not rewarded for them. Their average earnings are £81 per week less than the rest of Scotland. Just 26 miles up the road from Galashiels, in Edinburgh, average earnings are £170 per week more than those of Borderers. There is not a lot to keep people in the Borders if they can live in Edinburgh and earn an extra £170 per week.

I also went to the Borders Adult Learner and Students Association—BALSA—conference. I think that I was on after Jeremy Purvis, although the organisers did not have us on the platform at the same time—I do not know why. The people I met were very interesting. The problems that were raised were the same as those raised by the Adult Learners Forum in Edinburgh—ALFiE—and at the event that I was at this week. The issues are simple. For example, child care is one issue. Another issue is adult care, because some people who look after adult members of their family cannot get respite so that they can do some simple studies. There are funding and support issues, and transport is a huge issue, particularly in rural areas. If someone in Hawick wants to study in Galashiels and has to get the bus, they find the services irregular and expensive. There are also contact issues. In rural areas, where people are spread out, one does not know who the other adult learners with the same requirements are. I do not know if it exists already, but I would like the minister to consider establishing an e-index or catalogue of organisations that can be accessed, updated, reviewed and audited, so that people can tap in and see what organisations exist in their area—or anywhere in Scotland—and what their remits are.

I know that Christine Grahame was not here for the initial speeches, but she should be aware that there is a national learning opportunities database, which learndirect Scotland provides, and which should provide—

I thank the minister for that information. Are organisations such as BALSA on the database?

I can check that.

I can check for myself, now that the minister has been kind enough to tell me about it.

I refer the minister to the interesting document "A Bill of Rights for Adult Learners", three points in which I will raise because they are important. The document states that adult learners should have the right to

"education which is relevant to their lives" and which addresses

"their needs, interests, concerns and motivations."

Education should come from the grass roots up. Adult learners should not be talked down to. They should

"be involved in the formation of adult education policy at local, national and international levels."

That is incredibly important, because adult learners know the issues that they want to address, but they do not feel that they have access to policy, or even to MSPs.

Finally, as I have said already, there should be

"structures of social support ... dependant care, childcare, travel costs and other financial assistance."

Those are practical solutions that can change people's lives and the lives of those around them.

I start by making a point, to which Fiona Hyslop alluded, on the work of the former Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, on which I served, and the report on lifelong learning that took us well over a year to compile. I am extremely disappointed by what has happened to that report, because it has been placed on the back burner. Many of the issues that have been mentioned were the subject of extensive investigation when we were producing the report. The strength of committees is always being promoted in the Parliament, but the lack of continuity between the former Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and the current Enterprise and Culture Committee—I mean no disrespect to members of the current committee—is a great pity. No members who served on the former committee are on the current committee. The electors had their say in relation to Mr Andrew Wilson and Mr Brian Fitzpatrick, but lack of continuity does not serve the committee system well, particularly when such an extensive piece of work has been done.

I am surprised that Mr Mundell does not recognise the work of the committee within the body of the lifelong learning strategy, which was produced in response to the report to which David Mundell and Fiona Hyslop referred.

I recognise that individual aspects of the committee's work have been developed. Overall, however, the committee's report does not provide the backdrop that the committee envisaged in relation to the future development of lifelong learning.

The very issue that Des McNulty raised about the structure of employment in his surprisingly good contribution—although it had a slight anti-business bias that I did not take to—was one of the issues that the committee looked at. We found that we were moving to an employment structure with a number of highly skilled jobs at one end of the spectrum and that, under the existing structure, there are a number of jobs that do not require many skills at all. We found that a process of deskilling was taking place and that we needed to look at the corporate culture that led to that environment. Much of the academic evidence that we took was to the effect that the companies that pursued that approach did not prosper in the long term because it is not a good, long-term corporate strategy to deskill the work force. The evidence was that we needed a major cultural change and debate on those issues and that it was no good for us to say simply that we must increase everybody's skills only to find that the jobs relevant to those skills did not exist. That important point was raised in the report, along with many others.

My comments were not anti-business in any sense. My point was that, if we are to have a meaningful and effective skills strategy, that strategy must engage business. We need to achieve a culture change, particularly in those businesses that have not seen the light and aimed for high skills and high value. That is the direction in which Scotland must go.

It is indeed the case that we must engage business, but we must not lecture business. It is important that we get the balance right, as Murdo Fraser alluded to in his opening speech. That balance has not necessarily been delivered in the past, for example by the enterprise network.

As a member of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, I was always a strong advocate of the view that we should not try to force young people into higher education, or lead them to believe that they must go into higher education, immediately after leaving school; that is the right choice for some people, but it is not right for everyone. The committee report highlighted the benefits of part-time study, undertaken either in the work environment or by returning to study later in life when some softer skills have been gained, such as common sense, which, like the term "skills" itself, has a multitude of meanings. We must readdress that issue.

For once, I do not agree with Christine Grahame, because I think that Jeremy Purvis has done a good job of trying to move the former Scottish College of Textiles forward, in liaison with Councillor David Parker, who is the leader of Scottish Borders Council.

The point that I tried to make was that the Liberal Democrat Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning has not entered the fray to support the important marriage between the college and Heriot-Watt University.

Ultimately, if there is no resolution and political issues come up, I am sure that I, Christine Grahame and others will raise them. However, in the first instance, we should support Jeremy Purvis's efforts to advance the debate. I also hope that there will be universal support for making progress with the Crichton College campus in Dumfries, which the minister has visited. The Crichton campus is a victim of its own success, in that it is constrained by the issues that cut across further and higher education. That is why I hope that the UK Higher Education Bill will provide an opportunity to resolve some of the funding problems in institutions that offer both further and higher education courses. There is no doubt in my mind that the bringing together of further and higher education, not in the sense of a merger but in a working relationship, is absolutely key to the development of lifelong learning in Scotland.

I start with the issue that was raised by Fiona Hyslop and David Mundell and to which the minister responded. It was good that the work of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee influenced the Executive's lifelong learning strategy document. However, we should look at how we operate to try to become more effective.

At present, Parliament rides one horse and the Executive rides another, although they occasionally meet in the stable. We do not co-operate properly. If we had a system in which committees, ministers and their civil servant advisers met perhaps four times a year to have sensible discussions—not question-and-answer sessions, which have their uses but are limited—we could harness the different energies and knowledge to allow everyone to learn from one another. Without meaning to criticise the minister, I think that that idea should be considered.

We must also get the various branches of Government to co-operate better. Several head teachers of secondary schools have told me that, if they co-operate sensibly in the interests of a pupil to help that pupil to attend part time at a college and to gain some qualifications, those qualifications count for the college but not for the school. Although we have reduced the importance of league tables, they still exist. The school should get some credit for the pupil's performance as a student, otherwise, there is an incentive for the school to try to keep the pupil in school where they might follow courses less effectively than if they were at college. The young person might be better to leave school entirely to attend college at the age of 16. Such bureaucratic impediments to sensible co-operation should be addressed.

I was taken with the point raised in the report by the former Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee about the importance of business and soft skills. Employers find it increasingly difficult to work with young people who can communicate with their computer, but not with another human being. Our education system produces more and more people like that. We have to reverse that trend and ensure that, as well as being technically competent, people are socially competent and able to work in teams.

The old idea of having lots of team games is pooh-poohed in some quarters, but playing in an orchestra, participating in a dance group, or doing anything that teaches people to co-operate with others is valuable. Even going to a youth cafe where people socialise is a good idea. Modern life seems to discourage such group activities, but they should be part of the enterprise agenda.

I was recently taken with the work done by an organisation called—I think—Scotland UnLtd. That organisation has inherited—if that is the right word—quite a lot of money from the national lottery, which it gives out in small, one-off grants, usually of £2,000, to one, two or more people who have a nucleus of a good business idea. The money gives those people living expenses and therefore time for two or three months to develop their idea fully. The Executive could look at giving that idea more support so that skills can be married to business enterprise and more people can start their own businesses.

For whatever reason, we retain the idea in modern Scottish culture that we should work for somebody else, which might be the Government, the council, the Parliament, a law firm or whatever. The idea, in which the Americans believe much more, that life is about doing one's own thing and building up one's own little business, does not exist strongly enough here. Such ideas are extremely important and we should support them as well. I hope that the ideas that I have set out will find favour with members.

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this morning's debate. In yesterday's debate on the marine environment, I said that sustainable development was the most important principle that the Scottish Parliament had to take into account. Perhaps I am taking a slightly different tack on this issue from that taken by Shiona Baird, but I feel that having the necessary high-quality skills is one of the most important parts of the sustainable development agenda. In fact, Des McNulty—who unfortunately is not in the chamber at the moment—said as much in his speech. Although Shiona Baird's other points were well made, she could have stressed that a little more.

The Executive should be congratulated on its holistic approach to lifelong learning to ensure that we continue to grow the Scottish economy. Indeed, the Parliament has witnessed the Executive's commitment to providing greater opportunities for a range of people. For example, in my constituency, pre-school provision for the under-fives has both helped children's education and allowed their parents and guardians to go back into training while, at the other end of the spectrum, people who are over 65 are being catered for. Extra support has also been given to information technology.

Certainly, Scotland's demographics dictate that our economy must grow faster to provide the resources that will sustain the quality of life that we all hope to have. The economy should also be able to provide resources that would allow some of our people to engage in the learning environment if for no other reason than to promote knowledge and personal development. That important point emerged in the recent consultation document on the review of tertiary education and research in Scotland, which also covers further and higher education funding. We must strike a balance between ensuring that certain academic work is undertaken and ensuring that the needs of the Scottish economy and the Government's priorities are met. I know from conversations with university principals that they have concerns about the consultation document. I hope that the minister will repeat the message that he and the First Minister have continued to give out that the principals do not have any such cause for concern; I also hope that he will give an assurance to meet them to discuss certain issues.

However, we must recognise that the diversity of learning provision goes beyond the higher and further education sectors and reaches into our communities. Much has to be done to co-ordinate funding streams and the work of all learning providers to maximise investment in future skills. I agree with the view that, if we are to make the most of the substantial investment in lifelong learning, we must have a common funding platform that is responsive and relevant to the learning provision that our economy requires. As such a platform needs resources to deliver quality learning and research, I will welcome any additional support for knowledge transfer from further and higher education to business and for partnership working between the sectors to commercialise the learning and research that those institutions carry out. For example, the University of Stirling and Scottish Enterprise Forth Valley have been working very hard in that area. However, any funding platform should encompass opportunities to upskill and reskill our traditional industries as well as our private and public services. In that regard, we should take on Des McNulty's important points about how the Royal Bank of Scotland is leading the way in the area of continuing professional development.

Progression through learning and vocational skills training can be achieved only through collaboration between providers. However, such an approach should not be confined to the tertiary education sector. Instead, greater recognition should be given to informal community learning environments. From talking to people at the adult carers education—or ACE—project learning centre in Cornton, I know that many of them realise that if they had not gone back into some sort of training within their community they would not have been able to take up any lifelong learning, further education or job opportunities.

I have some concerns about the comments that have been attributed to the chairman of Scottish Enterprise on shifting the agency's focus away from supporting regeneration initiatives and skills training. Although it is understandable that Scottish Enterprise would want to focus purely on economic development, focusing on training and skills provides the opportunity to revitalise our skills base, particularly in communities that have the most need. I hope that his remarks will be clarified.

It is necessary to plan for the opportunities that will stem from major infrastructure projects in Scotland. At a recent meeting of the Local Government and Transport Committee, I asked about how the different Scottish Executive departments were coming together to ensure that the necessary skills were in place to allow roads, schools and other projects to progress in a planned way. At the time, Nicol Stephen gave a commitment to look into the matter and report back to the committee.

In closing, I could provide various examples from my constituency, such as the Playhaven project, that illustrate how early intervention is allowing families to get back into training. I could tell the chamber about schemes such as Employability Stirling that allow disabled people to develop skills and secure jobs. Moreover, a lot of good work has been undertaken jointly by Stirling Council and other colleges, particularly Clackmannan College, with which the council has just won the prestigious UK beacon award for construction skills.

I whole-heartedly support the Executive's holistic approach to skills and training and its inclusion of all the sectors that are involved.

One of the Scottish Executive's five goals for its lifelong learning strategy is to create

"A Scotland where people have the chance to learn, irrespective of their background or current personal circumstances".

Last week, I had the privilege of meeting Jewel and Esk Valley College staff at the Milton Road campus to hear at first hand about what they provide for people who are seeking to recover from mental illness or to move on in their lives despite recurrent mental health problems. The integrated curriculum services staff to whom I spoke, who are led by Ruth Hendery, were very much in the business of delivering on another of the Executive's strategic goals: to create a Scotland where people have the confidence and skills they need to participate in society despite all the difficulties they might have to overcome. I want to highlight some of the issues that emerge from delivering learning opportunities to people who have mental health problems and to point out some of the shortcomings that constrain college provision. I hope that ministers will address those shortcomings.

It should not take much imagination to realise that mental ill health raises significant barriers to learning. For example, people who suffer from such ill health might have low self-esteem, might lack confidence and might have a fear of being stigmatised in a college environment if symptoms recur or if their medical history is revealed. They might have dislocated lifestyles and have very real financial difficulties, or they might be struggling with the side effects of medication, with a lack of concentration and with a reduced capacity for retaining information.

In such circumstances, access to education services more often than not requires the active intervention of referral agencies, no matter whether they be national health service rehabilitation teams or local and national voluntary organisations. Referrals must be appropriate; they must take place at the right level, at the right time and in the right place, which inevitably requires that a range of services be available.

Additional support to overcome barriers to learning must be both comprehensive and holistic, which means that there must be close working relationships between the referral agencies and education providers. That poses a real challenge to the effectiveness of joint working. Although such issues are undoubtedly difficult, I sense that there is great willingness on all sides to tackle them and to assist people who are either recovering from or managing mental ill health in getting back into productive lives.

However, a big problem remains, which requires ministerial intervention and policy change. The current funding mechanisms need to be modified to allow students who have additional support needs to be accommodated without displacing mainstream students from college courses.

Currently, colleges have little room to expand dedicated provision for people who have additional support needs, or to provide education as part of rehabilitation. The on-going capping of growth throughout the college sector has led to an excess of demand for places. Priorities determine that those who are furthest from entering the labour market will be less likely to receive a service, as colleges are steered towards their core business of delivering vocational training. People who are recovering from mental ill health invariably need more pre-vocational training in preparation for job-related courses. Moreover, time means money, so colleges are under pressure to make courses shorter and to leave more material for students to cover through independent study. Again, that tends to disadvantage the client group about whom I am talking, who tend to need more personal tutorial support.

Although additional funding for students with additional support needs covers the extra costs of small classes, the overall budget remains limited and growth of such provision could take a disproportionate share of the budget. Colleges could be in the invidious position of having to choose between funding one student on a discrete course and funding two students on a mainstream course. Needless to say, colleges invariably address the needs of the many rather than the needs of the few.

There is a clear case for reform. Colleges that have the skills to work with partners in their own communities should be funded to provide discrete provision for people who have mental health problems, who perhaps need more time and support if they are to achieve their learning goals and become ready to undertake programmes of vocational training. I would be grateful for a commitment from the minister to addressing that matter.

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate, especially because it is adult learners week, as the minister and other members mentioned.

A strong and growing economy is the essential prerequisite for a progressive Government whose primary objective is the construction of a society that values all its citizens equally and affords them the opportunity to realise their full potential. A successful economy to which all can contribute positively is the essence of a just society. The Scottish Government believes that to achieve that goal it must invest in the people of Scotland, who are our country's greatest resource, by promoting a culture in which learning and the development of skills are seen not as the province of the young, but as a lifelong right for all.

That approach is correct and necessary. My experiences as an elected representative in Glasgow during the Tory years of decline have taught me how vital the Government's strategy to provide meaningful skills and lifelong opportunities is for the people whom I represent. As a former teacher, I know that a modern and properly-resourced education system—primary, secondary, tertiary and work-based—plays a vital part in the development of the intellectual possibilities that lie in all our people, young and old.

The Government has initiated a number of schemes that are having a positive impact; I will highlight some examples. The enterprise in education strategy was launched last year and states:

"We want all pupils in primary and secondary schools to enjoy enterprise activities that encourage a sense of responsibility, recognise strengths and achievements and contribute to their development."

The strategy has the complementary objective of providing pupils with access to workplace training and an understanding of the day-to-day running of a business. Those worthwhile and necessary ambitions are supported by Executive commitments that

"Every pupil from P1 through to S6 must have an entitlement to enterprise activities on an annual basis" and that

"All pupils over the age of 14 must have an opportunity for work-based vocational learning linked to accompanying relevant qualifications."

The Executive's enterprise in education initiative is indicative of a coherent, rational approach that quite correctly seeks to provide our young people with improved understanding of the challenges and opportunities of the world of work.

Other worthwhile initiatives seek to support a lifelong culture of learning and skills acquisition. There has been record investment in education by the Scottish Government; education spending in 2003-04 topped £5 billion for the first time, which represents £1,000 for every citizen of Scotland. However, the Executive was right to recognise that some young people's financial circumstances prevent them from taking advantage of the opportunities that are afforded to them at school. That is why I was delighted when the Government announced in March that education maintenance allowances, which have been successfully piloted in four areas, will be made available nationally. EMAs will be rolled out during the next four years and will provide financial support of up to £1,500 per year to encourage students to stay in education when their compulsory schooling ends.

The Tories have quite disgracefully, but not unexpectedly, called the EMA a bribe. It is not a bribe; it is a sensible investment in the future of young people and of Scotland and I welcome it.

Is the member aware that there are concerns about EMAs, not just among people in my party but among many people in the teaching unions, who fear that the allowances will create two tiers of students in classrooms and in further education colleges?

I am a member of the Educational Institute of Scotland, so I understand that concern, but my union is not always right; in this case it is wrong.

The Scottish union learning fund is one of the successes of recent years and has led to the creation of a network of learning representatives, who point the work force towards learning opportunities and negotiate with employers to make opportunities available. The continuing success of the fund is a positive sign of progress.

Time prevents me from doing more than mention the continuing success of the modern apprenticeships programme—as a result of which more than 31,000 apprentices are in training throughout Scotland—the good work that is being done to promote lifelong learning by Anniesland College in my constituency, and the creation of the new Yoker community campus, which should be ready to provide skills and training opportunities for local people in just under one year's time. Such developments characterise a strategy for skills and continued learning that is rational, practical and effective. On that basis, I commend the motion to members.

Yet again, the discussion of education and lifelong learning has provoked some consensual debate. I recall that in the first parliamentary session there was a rare opportunity to witness three—if not four—parties supporting a Conservative motion that called for more action to provide technical and vocational education by bringing schools and colleges together. The minister said that adults and young people must have the opportunity to learn and to improve themselves. Who could disagree with that? The Conservative amendment has been accepted and there are consensual stirrings in Parliament, despite the best attempts of Frances Curran and, a moment ago, Bill Butler to create discord. I do not think that their arguments will be generally accepted, however.

Does Brian Monteith accept that one reason for the consensual nature of the debate is that the Tory amendment is, in essence, in the partnership agreement, and follows the Liberal Democrats' manifesto that is currently being consulted on?

No doubt Robert Brown will invite us to be part of that partnership agreement—although, of course, we would prefer to displace that partnership, rather than be part of it.

Despite the lack of a consensual view from Bill Butler, I did not hear it suggested that the Tory move to incorporate FE colleges and take them away from local authorities should be reversed. Instead, what we heard concerns better management of the system that the Tories brought in and further improvement of modern apprenticeship schemes. We do not hear a radical challenge from the socialist left.

This sort of debate must make Rab McNeil tear his hair out. We do not have Stewart Stevenson getting up and telling us how his experience of working in an abattoir related to the debate on FE colleges—or his experience of working on nuclear fission in a laboratory, or his experience of working as a bus conductor. At times, the debate has verged on the somnambulistic; no doubt I am contributing to that.

In a Stewart Stevenson sort of way, I will not declare an interest but I will declare experience. I was a consultant to the General Teaching Council for Scotland for six years and a consultant to Edinburgh's Telford College for some three years. As a result, I have an interest in the matters that we are discussing, and I was invited to what was called a "strategic dinner" at West Lothian College just the other week. As members may imagine, I am all in favour of strategic dinners. I am also in favour of tactical dinners and, in fact, any dinners that come my way.

At that dinner, a very interesting discussion took place on registration of lecturers with the GTC; I would like to raise with the minister some serious points about partnership between FE colleges and secondary schools. To teach in schools, one requires GTC registration; but to lecture in FE colleges, such registration is not compulsory. If we start having pupils in schools being taught—or lectured, if members prefer—by FE staff, those pupils will no longer be learning from GTC-registered teachers.

I listened carefully to Murdo Fraser's speech. His proposals under Conservative policy would be for pupils to be taught in colleges, as opposed to being taught in schools by college lecturers. Does Brian Monteith see this as a two-way process? Does he agree that the GTC has an important role to play if we are talking about lecturers coming into schools?

Yes, I do see it as a two-way process; the birth of higher still made it almost inevitable that it would be a two-way process. Although it will often be easier if pupils travel to colleges for certain subjects, there will undoubtedly be times when managers of schools and colleges will recognise that it is easier for the lecturers to go to the schools. However, although more than 90 per cent of lecturers in most colleges are GTC registered, I make a plea that the enforcement of registration be resisted—not because we want to break the tradition of having GTC-registered teachers in schools, but because we should acknowledge that a real benefit can be brought to teaching by people who are actually in work and training.

The principal of Jewel and Esk Valley College mentioned to me the example of plumbing—a subject that is dear to all our hearts once or twice a year when things go wrong at home. Of course, more people are going into plumbing, but there is a real problem in attracting people to lecture in or to teach plumbing. Because of the high salaries in plumbing, it is hard to get people to come into colleges as teachers, although it is certainly possible to get them to come as students. We cannot expect that people who are qualified in plumbing will necessarily wish to gain teaching qualifications so that they can get GTC registration before passing on the benefit of their experience to students.

I do not necessarily expect the minister to give an answer on this right now, but I appeal to him to consider the point. If we are to get the blend right and have high quality teaching and lecturing, we must bring in people who have experience in particular jobs. Practitioners can pass on the benefit of that experience, so we must ensure flexibility in the delivery of teaching. That is all I am asking: I am not saying that I have the solution, but that that is the sort of thing the Executive should consider with college administrators and business leaders.

There may be a way round the problem: if people have a particular professional qualification in the subject that they will be teaching, we may be able to accept—as long as they do not teach for more than a certain number of hours—that they would not need GTC registration. We should consider such ideas while colleges and schools come closer together to provide necessary vocational skills. If we get stuck on details, we risk bringing the whole system down.

Brian Monteith spoke of consensus. Did I detect a new policy for his party? Is he hoping to replace the Liberal Democrats in coalition with Labour? That is an interesting concept.

Far be it from me to introduce a discordant note, but I must. We have been talking about lifelong learning for all individuals. It is a great pity that that strategy is not being implemented. What is actually happening is this: if anyone wishes to embark on a computing course at their local college they can, through an individual learning account, qualify for a grant of up to £200 to help with costs—unless, of course, they happen to be 65 or over. People who are 65 or over do not qualify for the ILA grant, which is despicable. It is ageism and it must be stamped out by the minister or by anyone else who has any authority in the matter. Jeremy Purvis talked about "silver surfers"; let us give those people opportunities by giving them the grant that is available to everyone else. We should enable them to become silver surfers if that is what they want to do. It is totally unacceptable for this Parliament to allow ageism and it must be stamped out.

Brian Monteith spoke eloquently about the shortage of skills. That subject is dear to my heart, too. We all know that the skills of engineers, plumbers, bricklayers, plasterers and joiners are not being taught to the younger generations. We have a vast pool of well-trained and skilled people in all those disciplines; all we have to do is give those people the opportunity—probably part time because, unlike me, many people do not want to give up their retirement—to impart to the youth of the country their skills, which have been hard earned over a lifetime. That would be to everyone's benefit.

We have a shortage of houses all over the country, and we have the skills of all the retired people out there. I see nothing wrong in the Executive authorising every council to bring such people in part time. Every council could be made to hire young apprentices and to pay skilled part-time bricklayers, joiners, electricians, plumbers and so on to teach the young people in a practical environment rather than in a classroom. We could build houses in every local council across the country. Twenty houses in each council area could help to deal with homelessness. Half the houses could be sold on the private market and the other half could be rented, so the scheme would be self-financing. It would also give the elderly retired people who would give up part of their time a chance to enhance their miserable pensions. Such chances are always welcome.

We could do something similar with nurses. Yesterday, we talked about agency nurses. I do not know how many members are aware of this, but an agency nurse can cost the national health service £56 an hour if the work is done on the night shift or on a holiday. That is an obscene amount of money; if it is extrapolated over a full year, it is almost as much as the First Minister earns per annum. In spite of that, nurses are being retired at 60, because they are deemed to be too old, even though they have a life expectancy of 84. Many of them would enjoy working, especially in the community. That would take the pressure off the NHS and help to tackle bedblocking, but the Government does not seem to have the vision to do that. All it wants to do is get people to go to college to get certificates. The people about whom I am talking do not need certificates; they have innate ability and knowledge, which they can pass on.

I remember addressing a meeting of 30,000 apprentices who were out on strike 55 years ago. We are now boasting about the fact that we have almost 30,000 apprentices, but back then there were 30,000 apprentices out on strike in the Lanarkshire area alone. We were on strike because our wage was only 19/6 per week, which was less than a pound. I will finish on that note.

I welcome the chance to debate the link between schools and further and higher education, and the Executive's consultation documents, "Building the Foundations of a Lifelong Learning Society" and "A Changing Landscape for Tertiary Education and Research in Scotland". I welcome those consultations because they give us the opportunity to consider the various elements of further and higher education and lifelong learning and to examine closely the purpose of those elements, which is to increase the skills of our work force, and to equip people to gain useful employment and to access lifelong learning—in short, to achieve the goals of "A Smart, Successful Scotland".

In a perfect world, there would be seamless transitions between school, further and higher education, work and on-going skills development. As young people reach the end of one phase, they should already be getting integrated into the next, which could be either continuing education or work. I am sure that many members, whatever their level of education, will agree that the steepest learning curve they ever faced was the one they faced when they went into their first job, regardless of what stage their life was at when they did that. We must give people the skills to get that first job and we must provide them with the opportunity to develop the skills that they need to get their next job or to progress in their existing job. That applies especially to people from deprived backgrounds, who might not have many of the social skills that are needed for today's world of work or who might not fit the normal, tailored educational model that provides seamless access from one level of education to the next.

The improvement of access to education should not be limited to getting more people into further and higher education. People from deprived areas will not have proper access until more of them can find their way into the more prestigious courses, such as law or medicine. That may mean providing an alternative route to those specialities that does not require one's having done a first degree and funding oneself through a second one.

There is no doubt that many of our schools, colleges and universities have been innovative in adapting programmes, courses and places of learning to meet the changing needs of communities, the workplace and the Scottish economy. For example, the community FE college that is based at Kirkland High School in Methil in my constituency has recently welcomed its 4,000^th recruit, who is an adult returner to work who wants to change her employment opportunities. There are articulation links between a number of Fife's high schools, FE colleges and the University of St Andrews, the University of Abertay Dundee and Napier University.

I commend, too, the institute model that is being developed jointly by Fife College of Further and Higher Education and Glenrothes College, which both serve my constituency, in areas such as engineering, IT and the creative industries. The institute for business and management is to be launched next week and—as Murdo Fraser said—those colleges have just announced their intention to consult on a merger, which would streamline their administrations and the types of courses that they deliver for the benefit of the community and the work force. The fact that all that is being delivered within the strategy of Fife's lifelong learning partnership—which, in turn, is part of the Fife economic forum—represents a clear link with "A Smart, Successful Scotland". I know that the minister is anxious for that model to be developed throughout the country.

I will now deal with the document on tertiary education and the merger of the funding councils, the purpose of which is to provide greater strategic co-ordination and coherence in tertiary education in Scotland. The merger of the funding councils—which has, in effect, already taken place, bar the unification of their boards—is widely welcomed. However, the proposals for strategic direction for institutions and the powers of ministers have generated considerable debate, some of which has been measured and some of which has been—to be frank—hyperbolic. When the minister meets the universities and the colleges, I hope that he will do so with an open mind, and that the final outcome will strike the right balance between providing strategic direction and safeguarding academic freedom, which is a point that Sylvia Jackson made.

Last night, I had the pleasure of attending the premiere of a film in Fife. It had been made by the Fife active care leavers exchange group, which had used, in a graphic way, modern media and acting techniques, as well as lifelong learning opportunities, to show the difficulties that that sector of the community experiences in keeping down a job and getting into further or higher education. It is not just the young people who are in work who are the future of our country; young care leavers are, too. Their skills and aptitudes must be developed.

Scotland's fast-changing economy needs a dynamic lifelong learning ethos. The Labour-led Executive has shown its willingness and ability to make policy in a dynamic way. I commend the Executive's motion to all members of Parliament.

At the beginning of the debate, the absence from today's proceedings of the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning was noted; I am not sure whether that was intended as a snide comment or a simple observation. This week, Jim Wallace is on a trade mission to the Czech Republic and Slovenia—that is why he is not at the debate. It is appropriate to make that point in the introduction to the winding-up speeches, because the opportunities in the new expanded Europe represent the background against which today's debate takes place.

One of the pleasures of being a closing speaker in such a debate is that one has had the benefit of hearing everyone else's good ideas. There have been some excellent speeches, which, in large part, have been consensual. It has been a good, positive debate on a vital subject and has, in many ways, shown the Scottish Parliament at its best. The debate has provided Scottish ministers with much food for thought and much solid progress to be commented on.

It must surely be the Parliament's objective—perhaps its prime objective—to make Scotland synonymous with education and learning and, in particular, to make technological and entrepreneurial education central to all that. We have no lack of role models, from engineers and scientists to entrepreneurs and philanthropists. Given the angst that we sometimes express in such debates, it should not be forgotten that we have a solid base in key areas—that is exemplified by Weirs of Cathcart in engineering, the superb work of our universities and colleges and our contribution to medical or biotechnological research. We have a large number of good small and medium-sized companies, which in my area of Rutherglen and Cambuslang, for example, are involved in an enormous range of activities. They support home and export markets in ways that I did not know about before I was elected to the Parliament and got the chance to go round some of them.

Jeremy Purvis made an interesting comment, which, although not new, was symbolic. He said that the key to the success of the Borders was the people and their skills. That applies to Scotland generally, as Bill Butler indicated, and it underlies the debate.

Fiona Hyslop made a good point about a national spatial strategy and the differences between different parts of the country with regard to growth and other specific needs, such as those that relate to Glasgow and Edinburgh. However, I was not certain what her position was on the merger of the funding councils; I thought that she came close to saying that she was not very keen on the merger or was biding her time on it. Merging the funding councils is an important strategic decision, which should mean a joint input by universities and colleges to a key and important area.

I will clarify matters. I do not think that there is any problem with the merging of the funding councils, which is a welcome bureaucratic change. However, there are concerns about the sector's future and the definition of the tertiary sector. There are serious concerns about the detail in the draft bill on tertiary education and the prospects for that sector—Christine May has just made that point.

That is a welcome clarification. There is a debate to be had about where we should go in that respect and we will no doubt see the outcome of that debate over the next few weeks and months.

Fiona Hyslop seemed to be taken by Professor Heckman's lecture and the point about early intervention, which I think that we all support. In fact, the Executive has put much emphasis on that, on nursery schooling for three and four-year-olds and on a variety of such initiatives. I hope that Fiona Hyslop does not sign up to a number of what I thought were extremely right-wing assertions by Professor Heckman, not least about the way in which we should fund further and higher education and the balance of funding between different areas. Perhaps she will accept that such things are all-important and that heavy investment in those areas is needed to sustain Scotland's advantage.

There has been much talk about plumbers, who seem to represent a key experience for members. It seems that people can never get a plumber. I have a quibble with the suggestion in the audit that there is not, in fact, a skills shortage. I am not entirely convinced by that, because many people have found it difficult to get people in a number of construction areas. It was odd that Jamie Stone mentioned the matter in his earlier intervention. In the recent past, I have heard anecdotally about a number of employers and employees—or prospective employees—who have said that they could not get people to come and work for them or that they could not get into plumbing opportunities. The problem might relate to structure. Are firms taking on an adequate number of plumbing apprentices? Does the set-up allow people to come into the industry? In short, does the issue relate simply to skills, or is there a wider structural issue that must be considered?

The experience of colleges has been mentioned, and there is an issue there. I went round a number of businesses in my area a summer or so ago and was not surprised to note that successful businesses put considerable emphasis on the need for high-class training and considerable investment in training and expertise. However, there was a considerable question mark over whether that training was always best provided by colleges rather than in house. That came as a surprise to me, because I confess that I am an admirer of the contribution that colleges make. However, it reflects the fact that we sometimes have problems in getting colleges to switch on to the changing markets for skills as accurately as they need to. People who are charged with such matters in colleges may need an overall way of approaching them.

The member has one minute.

I want to mention one other issue. Shiona Baird talked about environmental sustainability. If there is one thing that is the hallmark of the partnership agreement and the Executive's work, with its emphasis on building green industries and so on, it is the environmental sustainability of what we are trying to do. The Liberal Democrats in particular have made a significant contribution in that area.

Brian Monteith and Murdo Fraser dealt with a central point when they talked about 14 to 16-year-olds. Young people who are not entirely switched on by schools can be given the opportunity to go to colleges in the meantime, with the school controlling the set-up. That is a significant issue.

Important issues have been raised in this excellent debate, and the Parliament and the Executive have made significant progress. I welcome the motion.

The debate has been useful and constructive and many important points have been raised in it. Adam Ingram, for example, asked the minister to confirm that the interests of those with additional support needs will be properly taken into account. I will be glad to see the minister renouncing and dissociating himself from ageism, as John Swinburne suggested.

I am familiar with the reality that much inward investment has come to Scotland because the Scottish education system has prepared our young people, through advancement on merit, with superb technical qualifications. That remains the position, but we must concentrate on giving priority to areas in which there are skills shortages—Robert Brown has just alluded to that matter. It is ironic that many graduates find it difficult to get a job at a time when shortages exist. That could mean that we should have more students studying in further education and that we should place a less high priority on pushing up numbers for universities.

Our policy is to deal with skills shortages, which is why we seek to enhance the status of the further education sector. We noted with interest the rumours—which we understand have been strenuously denied—that the Executive wants to merge FE colleges with universities, but the point is that FE colleges can be advanced in status without any standards being lowered. Of course, we have the highest regard for FE colleges.

In our view, the Administration's arbitrary concern with increasing university admissions misses the essential point that young people should be able to obtain fulfilment according to their abilities, aptitudes and inclinations. Both university and further education should be seen as important steps towards employment. Indeed, in a harshly competitive world, if certain programmes no longer appeal to employers and potential employees, there is a case for reviewing and updating such courses and qualifications.

David Mundell spoke about the problems that are associated with deskilling and the need for reskilling, as it is obvious that nothing stands still, and Jeremy Purvis raised an important issue relating to the Scottish College of Textiles, which I hope that the minister will consider.

Shiona Baird, Sylvia Jackson and other members referred to the necessity of a commitment to sustainable development. The minister will no doubt reconfirm his commitment to sustainable development today.

Christine Grahame raised the important issues of child care and transport. A commitment on timing for the Waverley line would be universally welcomed.

Brian Monteith pointed out that Conservative policy has been adopted by no less a person than the Prime Minister and, of course, by the Executive. There has been some convergence with Liberal party policy. I welcome the fact that progress is being maintained on further education. Indeed, the fact that the Executive is going to accept our proposal to roll out access to vocational training to all pupils who are 14 or over and who wish to pursue it is a healthy sign. We believe that such a policy is of great importance in the climate of chronic indiscipline in many of our schools. That climate has been highlighted this week by the president of the NASUWT, who called indiscipline

"a serious cancer growing within our schools" and called for a "zero-tolerance discipline regime". The problem is no doubt compounded by the fact that many pupils have become disengaged from the academic system and would, in all likelihood, fare much better if they undertook vocational courses in further education institutions.

I want to make a point with which I hope the member agrees. In the Labour and Lib Dem partnership document, there is also provision for increasing access from school to further education.

I welcome that fact, which we can build on to produce the success that we need in a competitive Europe. I also welcome the fact that the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning is in the Czech Republic pursuing our interests.

Murdo Fraser and Fiona Hyslop highlighted a problem and focused on skills shortages, which must be addressed. We hope that the minister will say something about the fact that the lack of so-called soft skills among new recruits must be addressed. We welcome the fact that the minister is now giving whole-hearted support to the hugely successful modern apprenticeships scheme, which we introduced some 10 years ago.

Bill Butler referred to the necessity of creating a culture for learning. I cannot help but recall that, when Einstein was a boy, he frustrated his violin teacher with his lack of aptitude for violin playing, so much so that his teacher said, "Einstein, can't you count?" Today, I suggest that learning is for everyone who is capable, including teachers and, in particular, those who aspire to be leaders of the people. I call on the minister to confirm his total commitment to learning for life for all our citizens. I support Murdo Fraser's amendment.

This has been a good debate, which has properly praised the good things that are being done. Congratulations are due to those who are crusading about the need to acquire skills; developing services, programmes and initiatives; delivering training; and taking the big-hearted route, as Tom Hunter has done with his hard-cash emphasis on building entrepreneurial skills. Congratulations are due, in particular, to those who grasp the opportunity to learn, train and retrain.

However, there is no room for complacency. All other European countries are doing the same as we are and all of them have more power than we have. Further, most of them have a much better track record of population retention. Therefore, we must start any review of skills policy by understanding that inputs and outputs are not the same as outcomes. The outcomes that we need are more people in better jobs; a growing economy; improving living standards that will converge with those of our more successful European neighbours; and an increasing population, especially of young people.

Those outcomes are still some way away. The debate has exposed a lack of strategy on the part of the Scottish Executive or, at least, a strategy that does not pass audit. In response to Des McNulty's point, Fiona Hyslop and I are not calling for a new strategy document; I think that we pass muster in relation to strategy documents. The Irish academic John Bradley, in his recent Fraser of Allander lecture, compared Ireland with Scotland and said that Scotland had the best documents, but that Ireland had the best strategies and, therefore, the best outcomes. That comes as no surprise, because the components of having and implementing a strategy include resources; macro-targets; comprehensive reporting of outcomes; evidence-led policy scrutiny; constant benchmarking; and evidence-led strategy and policy refinement.

We can see that resources are being made available for each of those elements—we welcome that—but we have no macro-targets. We have no way of knowing whether, as Christine May said, we have achieved the goals of "A Smart, Successful Scotland." At a recent meeting of the Finance Committee, I asked the Minister for Finance and Public Services whether we should have a small number of firm, open, understandable macro-targets to show how we are doing. His response proves my point:

"There is no point in my setting targets for things over which I have no control or influence. ... it is difficult to set targets for population increase or decrease and for other aspects that are beyond our control; we play our part in such things, but we do not always have the direct levers of control. What happens in the American economy has a huge impact on Scotland, but I do not control the American economy."

We are grateful for that. He continued:

"I am happy to sign up to targets for things for which we are responsible and should be accountable, but the targets must be on things over which we have responsibility and control."—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 27 April 2004; c 1299.]

That is amazing—the minister is using the SNP's justified accusation as a fig leaf. He is scraping the bottom of his barrel of failed strategies so deeply that he is scraping into the top of our barrel and using our analysis of his core problem as his defence. While we welcome that honest acceptance of our argument and encourage the minister to dig deeper and take up our solutions, we know that no other minister in Europe would echo his statement. Thus, his position is unsustainable.

On the issue of comprehensive reporting of outcomes, I note that another recent Fraser of Allander lecture was delivered by the Nobel laureate, James Heckman, who used his opening remarks to bemoan, with incredulity, the lack of Scottish data. That leads me to the issue of evidence-led policy scrutiny. Heckman contrasted Scotland with other countries, such as his own, and suggested that we live in an era in which outcome data have never been more crucial to correct and shape policy, because such data supply the irrefutable evidence that intelligently forces policy change. What do we have? No data, no data-fuelled debate and, therefore, less-effective scrutiny. It is no surprise, then, that the Scottish Executive appears to have been doing nothing with regard to constant benchmarking. Not for us the sensible comparison of our results with elsewhere, which would enable us to learn from other jurisdictions. We should be not only learning what programmes and techniques make a difference elsewhere, but highlighting our successful methodologies to help other people and see whether they have ideas that could improve them further.

We need to be more like Andy Kerr and to answer honestly the question of what the difference is between Scotland and other European nations. That is the fundamental tenet of problem solving, which forces us to a conclusion that might be uncomfortable for some: all the other states have the power to compete. Each of them has the power to build a powerful blend of competitive advantage that combines skills and infrastructure and to create the conditions that compel people, companies, capital and intellectual properties to stay in their home country.

There is, as yet, little evidence of evidence-led strategy and policy refinement. However, Heckman told us that, as with business, without that feedback loop and the constant refinement and reallocation of resources, optimal results will continue to elude us. In effect, he went some way towards bolstering aspects of the SNP's argument that there is a hole in the Executive's economic basket through which real value flows out to other economies. However, Heckman was also able to reach a conclusion that George Kerevan paraphrased in The Scotsman:

"the Executive is spending its money in all the wrong places if it wants to maximise results".

The current policies are being delivered in the absence of a strategy that stands up to scrutiny and are producing sub-optimal results, but the current package of policies has an even more fundamental flaw. Many of our trained people are drifting away to other economies, and trained people from other economies who will be welcomed here will tend to be attracted away again to faster-growing areas of the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Many of those people, especially those from the accession states, will want to take their newly polished English and their new skills back to their own country to buy into the exponential growth and asset appreciation that will happen there.

Jim Mather will have noticed that the Registrar General for Scotland's figures for population growth for 2002-03 show that the number of people coming to Scotland from overseas exceeded the number of emigrants by 700 and that 2,400 fewer people left Scotland to go to the rest of the UK in that year. How does he explain those figures?

I question all the data that come from the Scottish Executive. For example, the new gross domestic product data suggest to me a company waking up one day and saying, "Let's forget about our failing divisions, such as manufacturing and engineering, and plan the business the way that it is at the moment, concentrating on the divisions that are strong." To do that would be to ignore the resulting redundancy costs, losses arising from lack of appreciation of failed assets, reorganisation costs, loss of credibility with borrowers, damaged share price and, perhaps, a take-over attempt.

We want a chance to participate in a national upward curve. We want to use our national power and personal competitiveness as a lever to do so.

As always, we return to the core, unresolved problem, which Andy Kerr is now using as his fig leaf: our lack of economic powers. As long as we lack those economic powers and a comprehensive strategy for Scotland, we face continuing national and domestic insecurity about the future. No matter how good things might look in the short term, that insecurity is palpable. More people have to move to find jobs; others have to stay here and take lower-level jobs at a lower level of pay, which widens the income gap; and the population is declining. Surely that is deserving of a remedial strategy worthy of the name.

I support Fiona Hyslop's amendment.

Inevitably, Jim Mather's closing speech took us from the issue of skills and training to the issue of the devolution settlement. Of course, the issue before us is not what alterations Jim Mather would like to make to that settlement but how best to use the tools that we have. He asked what is different about Scotland. If he had listened carefully to what business said at the recent business in Parliament event that took place in the chamber a few weeks ago, he would have heard that what is different about Scotland is that we have a world-beating reputation for education and skills. Many people have said that that is why companies choose to do business here. The question for the Parliament and the Executive is how we maintain that world-beating reputation and adapt it to meet the needs of the 21 ^st century.

The vital contribution that skills and learning make to economic growth and to social justice was widely acknowledged in the debate. Much agreement has been expressed about many of the measures that we have taken and proposed to promote skills and learning. However, some members have offered false choices. For example, a choice does not have to be made between improving soft skills and responding to industries' specific needs. We must do both. That is why Futureskills Scotland plays such an important role. Not only has it talked to employers to identify and address skills gaps and shortages, but it is conducting research on core skills and soft skills, which I have no doubt will be extremely useful and will be available to us soon.

A choice does not have to be made between a skills strategy and a lifelong learning strategy. I repeat that "Life through Learning; Learning through Life" offers a coherent and comprehensive response to the report on lifelong learning that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee produced in the previous session. When we published our lifelong learning strategy, that marked an important step in meeting the committee's aspiration to make the learning nation a reality. The strategy takes a learner-centred approach and places a strong focus on skills, knowledge and inclusion. Many of its key commitments are aimed at bringing more people into learning and helping them to stay there.

I appreciate the minister's comments, but will he reflect on the statistics that the Executive revealed today, which show an 11 per cent decline in the past year alone in the number of part-time students who enrolled in further education colleges? In many subjects, such as maths, engineering and technology, languages and education, that decline has been in the number of students following sub-degree courses. Will the minister comment on that worrying statistic?

The figures that we published today have several features. I am sure that Fiona Hyslop will agree that the clear overall trend remains upwards. The fluctuations in the number of part-time students who undertake higher education courses at further education colleges are nothing new and are not in themselves surprising. We want to ensure the maximum uptake of such opportunities and the maximum articulation from further education to higher education. That is why we have paid close attention to such issues recently.

The learner-centred approach in our lifelong learning strategy will tackle literacy and numeracy issues. We will introduce education maintenance allowances, which Bill Butler mentioned, and we will widen access to further and higher education. We believe that all that will help to redress the balance between those who achieve their potential and those who do not.

We have established the lifelong learning forum to ensure that we have the best advice on implementing our strategy. I am sorry that Fiona Hyslop reported difficulty in accessing information about that forum. There is no secret; it is a body that brings together people from many sectors of business and from learning and training providers. The forum will shortly establish its own website, which will remove any remaining uncertainty on Ms Hyslop's part. It will publish its first report next month and it will meet again very soon. If she wants to know more, she has only to ask.

It is important not to be pushed into a false choice between developing learner aptitude—soft skills, some might say—in the early years and investing in supporting adults and in continued learning. We need to do both. We have sharp demographic challenges, which have been mentioned. They cannot be met by investment only in the very young or, equally, without improving our young people's skills and investing in pre-school education. That is why our range of policies and pipeline of support for learning are important.

Members have discussed the schools and colleges review and Brian Monteith asked about the GTCS's involvement in that. Great care has been taken to involve the GTCS in the consultation. It was given, and took, the opportunity to publish unedited its response to the consultation. We will continue to work closely with the GTCS and trade unions on how we implement the review of the relationship between schools and colleges.

The governance of FE colleges has been mentioned. It is true that FE boards are required to include members with professional and business experience, as Frances Curran said, but it is not true to say that that experience is confined to the private sector. It is found in the public and voluntary sectors and we encourage colleges to draw on whatever expertise will help them to make the choices that they must make to deliver proper and relevant courses to their students.

It was no doubt informative to debate the roles of FE colleges and the enterprise networks in ensuring that training provision meets the needs of business, but the key is to ensure that all stakeholders have a say and work together. The sector skills network is critical to achieving that. Sector skills councils draw on the expertise of employers and unions to work with trainers and learning providers and to ensure that the training that we provide is fit for purpose.

Modern apprenticeships are a key part of that training and a vital source of skills development for industry. We have placed great importance on the provision of apprenticeships to supply the skills that Scottish industry needs. Murdo Fraser was right to say that a previous Government introduced modern apprenticeships—it had to do so, because it had allowed traditional apprenticeships to wither away. When we passed our target of 30,000 modern apprenticeships earlier this month, that meant that we had increased by six times the number of apprentices in training since 1997. Most of those apprentices are young people, but it is worth remembering that apprenticeships provide an opportunity for older people to upgrade their skills.

Modern apprenticeships have shown that learning and sustainable development go hand in hand. I am delighted to report that the first modern apprenticeship scheme in the United Kingdom for nuclear decommissioning is based at Dounreay. That is another example of the benefit that our modern apprenticeship schemes can bring to working people in Scotland.

Christine May and others asked about the relationship between further and higher education in relation to the consultation on the bill to complete the merger of the funding councils. The new funding council will not have a central planning role; that will continue to be the role of individual institutions. Like its predecessors, the new council will take a strategic lead on issues such as quality, coherence and new institutional models. The merger is not intended to impinge on academic freedom. The higher education framework that we produced last year made clear our continuing commitment to that academic freedom. In fact, the proposed bill will extend to FE colleges some of the academic freedoms that universities enjoy. We do not intend to change the status of universities or FE colleges.

Of course, learning is not just about further and higher education, important though that is. The debate has—correctly—focused on other sectors of learning and skills provision. We want to create a culture of lifelong learning. We use learndirect Scotland as our one-stop shop for encouraging people into learning and as a broker, through its network of 450 learning centres, to make access easier for all people of all generations. Tomorrow is silver surfers day and will mark the increasing uptake of access to information technology skills that learndirect Scotland has provided to the older generation.

I listened carefully to Adam Ingram's comments on learners with additional needs. He made important points that I am happy to consider and I will respond to him in due course.

Christine Grahame asked about BALSA in the Scottish Borders and ALFiE. Having checked since we had our exchange earlier, I can tell her that they are not listed on the learndirect Scotland database because they are learner forums rather than learning providers. However, the learning providers that are listed in the database will refer inquirers to appropriate sources of guidance, information and support. One of my senior officials will chair an information, advice and guidance delivery group that will meet next week and will consider ways of improving the delivery of learndirect Scotland services to such forums.

The lives of many individuals, even those of quite an advanced age, have been changed by the opportunity to re-enter learning and to learn new skills. Such learning contributes to sustainable development and I have no doubt that our green jobs strategy will identify sectors in which Scotland can prosper industrially and economically and, therefore, sectors in which additional skills will be required. Skills and learning are important for industry and contribute to growth in the economy.

In winding up, I can only repeat my invitation to those members who want to take advantage of some learning opportunities themselves to do so. A tutorial on basic sign language—courtesy of Deaf Action—will be held in the chamber at 12.45 pm, and I hope that colleagues from all parties will take advantage of that opportunity to learn a new skill. I hope that colleagues will also take advantage of learndirect Scotland's mobile learning station, which is at the Parliament this week.

It is clear that the importance of learning and skills is recognised on all sides of the chamber. I welcome the constructive nature of the debate that we have had on the subject today.