Education and Culture Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Official Report 396KB pdf

---

Draft Annual Report

Our final item of business today is consideration of our draft annual report for the parliamentary year 9 May 2011 to 8 May 2012. Do members have any comments on the draft report?

On the one-off evidence sessions, I wonder whether it would be useful to include a little more information on the evidence session—

I am sorry. Which evidence session do you mean?

Paragraph 8 is very broad brush. It merely lists the meetings on, for example, broadcasting and early years. Should we include more information on those sessions, which were tightly focused?

We could do that. I do not mind either way. If the committee is happy, I am happy to expand on them. The report is a factual report on the committee’s activities and is neutral in tone, so there is no problem with that.

I have a question for the clerk. I should probably have asked it before the meeting started. The evidence that we took this morning on children’s hearings is not mentioned in the draft report, but it covers the period up to 8 May, which is today. Should that be included?

The draft report does not include absolutely everything that the committee has done. It could mention today’s evidence, if the committee wants to include that.

10:30

The report refers to a number of petitions, so we should include the petition that we have just discussed.

Okay.

Those are my only comments. Once those changes have been made, we will ensure that the report is circulated electronically to members for final sign-off. As I have said, it is just a straightforward annual report.

I—and, I believe, Liam McArthur—have been contacted by a number of constituents about the glow schools information technology network, the contract for which is due to end in September. I know that the procurement process for a new system is under way, but genuine concerns have been expressed about the system’s ability to be live and active by September, about the fall-back position and so on, so I wonder whether we could get someone in to give us a basic update on where we are with glow and on whether the new system will go live in time.

Despite his not being here, Liam McArthur seems to be featuring rather a lot at this morning’s meeting. I should say that Liam and I have had a conversation about this issue and, as I said to him, although I have no problem with trying to find out what is going on with glow and although I understand the concerns that he, Neil Findlay and perhaps other committee members share—I see Liz Smith indicating that she, too, shares them—my concern is that, as we are in the middle of a procurement process, anyone from whom we heard evidence would simply answer, “We’re in the middle of a procurement process” to our questions. I am not entirely sure that that would be advantageous.

I suggest that, instead, we first write to the Government for an update and then decide whether we should hear someone at a meeting. In saying that, I am not trying to delay consideration of the matter; I am saying just that if we are happy with the response we can leave it at that.

It might be better to get a written response first instead of getting someone along to tell us something that could be set out in a letter.

That is what I am concerned about.

I am okay with that suggestion, convener.

Are members generally content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

In that case, I thank members and close the meeting.

Meeting closed at 10:31.