A NEW entitlement to learning, the key recommendation in the Scottish Parliament’s lifelong learning report, is not “a blank cheque”, one of the leading MSPs behind the idea told a lifelong learning convention this week.

The entitlement has to operate “within an envelope of existing resources, although these resources have been increasing”, Marilyn Livingstone, a member of the enterprise and lifelong learning committee, said.

Alex Neil, the committee’s convener, said that, while its interim report is based on the firm principle that “funding should follow the learner”, there had to be a balance between that and funding for institutions, as well as the requirements of a national strategy.

Talking to the media later, Mr Neil said Future Skills Scotland had a crucial role to play in providing the labour market intelligence necessary to enable that balance to be struck. “Their job must be to map out manpower requirements for the benefit of the economy and of individuals - but not planned down to the last detail because we know that doesn’t work.”

Ms Livingstone said a national strategy for lifelong learning had to allow for local flexibility based on the local labour market.

The committee organised the convention for interested parties to respond to the committee’s interim report. In an innovative departure, their reactions are intended to shape the final report, due to be published in June. There will then be a parliamentary debate in the autumn when the Scottish Executive will set out how it plans to handle the recommendations.

Mr Neil described the convention, the first time a parliamentary committee has taken such a step, as “an invaluable exercise in democratic participation”. Other committees might well wish to do the same for major reports.

Those who did participate in the discussion, held in the Edinburgh International Conference Centre, gave the interim report a broad welcome, but many had a string of reservations. Indeed, at a meeting of the committee two days later, members acknowledged they had a considerable amount of work to do to win over the lifelong learning sector. But Mr Neil warned that its job is not “to cross every T and dot every I”.

Several members at the Wednesday meeting criticised many of those who commented and gave evidence for concentrating on their own needs. “Hardly anybody came to us and said, ‘this is our vision for lifelong learning’,” Mr Neil said. “They were not looking at the big picture,” David Mundell, a Tory member, said.

Celia Carson, representing voluntary bodies, felt their experience with non-formal learning had not been sufficiently recognised. “The report follows the institutional FEHE route,” she said.

Bob Kay, chairman of the Association of Scottish Colleges, underlined the contribution FE is already making but said it needed more resources. Fifty-eight per cent of FE students are over 25 and 60 per cent of HE students began their studies in an FE college.

Ian Johnston, principal of Glasgow Caledonian University, said the aims set out in the report are “brilliant”. But it failed to capture the essence of lifelong learning which is to create “effective individuals” who are adaptable, flexible and have emotional intelligence.

John Park of the STUC expressed disappointment at the narrowness of the focus on union involvement. Unions were often the driving force behind workforce development, Mr Park said, and the new statutorily backed learner representatives on the shopfloor would increase capability in the workplace.

Rami Okasha of the National Union of Students in Scotland suggested there should be a single funding body for further and higher education. The committee has rejected this for the time being but is not opposed in principle.

Bill Anderson of the Forum of Private Business said many workers had skills but not the required qualifications. This highlighted the difficulty of day release in companies with two or three employees.

Tim Shand,representing learners in FE and HE, criticised the report for side-stepping issues of student finance. Student debt was a significant factor in increasing drop-out rates. The committee deliberately chose not to include this in its deliberations on the grounds that it had already discussed it and it would have ruled out any prospect of producing a unanimous cross-party report.

Marian Healy, further and higher education officer of the Educational Institute of Scotland, said the committee’s objectives could not be realised without higher staff morale. “High quality lifelong learning has to be delivered by highly qualified staff who are well motivated. If one of the objectives is to create a high-learning, high-earning nation, those who deliver this agenda must be high earners as well.”

Ms Healy said she was “very disappointed” that the committee missed an opportunity to recommend a return to national collective agreements involving FE management and unions. The committee said it did not have enough evidence on which to do so.

Paul McKelvie of Scottish Power questioned whether lifelong learning was being tackled “holistically”. The focus was on provision not on what happens before and after - guidance and assessment.

Mr Neil welcomed the comments but said on Wednesday that they would force the committee to rethink some proposals - or at least spell them out more clearly.

He admitted that nobody attending the convention seemed to believe that the committee’s proposals could be “budget neutral”. There were also reservations about the recommendation to fund all types of learning in the same way, but only up to level 8 of the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (equivalent to the end of second year at university).

Annabel Goldie, the Tories’ deputy leader, who is vice-convener of the committee, said she would be looking for some “radical recasting” of the report following the comments she encountered at the convention, which would have budget implications.