Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Okay, comrades, it is time to begin. We are three minutes late, which is probably my fault.
The first item on the agenda is evidence from the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland. We will hear from Gordon Jeyes, who is the general secretary of the ADES, and Bob McKay, who is a member of the executive and the director of education services in Perth and Kinross.
Before I ask you to give your presentation, I apologise for the absence this afternoon of Bristow Muldoon and Keith Harding.
You will have to use your electronic cards as we are on TV; if you do not want to be on TV, do not use your card. With those housekeeping matters out of the way, I ask Gordon and Bob to give their presentation, after which the committee will ask questions.
Gordon Jeyes (Association of Directors of Education in Scotland):
Thank you, convener. I will make a brief statement first and then I am happy to respond to questions.
It would be easy to believe that more than enough has been said about the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986. However, I must intimate briefly the view of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland on this issue.
The section that the Executive seeks to repeal is based on discrimination. If one believes that discrimination is dangerous and that there should be no discrimination against homosexuals, repeal of that section is entirely rational.
Any approach to sex education in schools should be child centred and age and stage appropriate. I am the director of children's services at Stirling Council and we need to bear in mind children's needs and to listen to their voices. If discrimination and fear are allowed to predominate, ignorance will be the victor, which surely is not acceptable.
We note that the opponents of repeal have caused considerable anxiety. Materials have been circulated that have never been, and should never be, used in Scottish schools. Some of the materials, which have been around for quite a while, were prepared by health boards for targeted use with adults as part of anti-AIDS initiatives—they are not school materials.
My second difficulty with those who oppose repeal is their descriptions of public opinion. Of course, any test of public opinion depends on the question asked. Promotion of sexuality of any nature in school is not appropriate. All relationships depend on equality, justice and respect, and Scottish teachers set sexuality in its appropriate context. Any discussion of lifestyle should be based on decision making and building the capacity of young people to make decisions. That approach is used for health and careers education, and for other personal development matters.
We retain the feeling that the political debate on section 2A has been done by mirrors, as it has never quite been about the issue as presented. We must not let the debate be about intolerance, prejudice and ignorance. However, it will be beneficial if we can retain the level of interest in school-parent partnership on all matters of children's personal and social education. Such matters can be dealt with only by an effective partnership between home and school. Parents need and deserve continuing reassurance, which can be delivered only at school level and which should not be based on a piece of paper, even if that piece of paper is statutory.
Moreover, it seems to us that repeal is no longer the sole issue. It is a signal that we make to civil Scotland and, more important, to tomorrow's citizens. The future is not what older people think, but what younger people do. Therefore, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland wishes to make a commitment to resisting prejudice and ignorance. Within that, the proposed section 26 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc Bill, is helpful and sensible, but we would argue that further detail would not be appropriate.
I am more than happy to answer questions on my statement and on other matters relating to proposed guidance.
Thank you, Gordon. I will open up the discussion for questions.
On a point of clarification, you referred to the materials, which are really targeted at adults, which have been circulated already. Do you have any information that those materials have been sent elsewhere?
None at all. I was responsible for a division of the education department of Strathclyde Regional Council and, for the past four years, I have been in Stirling. I have been in education management for more than 10 years. I have never received any complaints about materials and I am not aware of any complaints from colleagues. The only issues about sex education that were ever raised with me as a director were when youngsters said that the materials were not effective or when others raised concerns about certain sexual health matters such as unacceptable levels of teenage pregnancy.
When I referred to those materials, I meant the materials circulated by those opposing the repeal of section 2A as if they were school materials, when everyone knows that they are not school materials. That led to anxiety and to misinformation. I do not doubt the integrity of the people who were collecting signatures, but their anxieties are not based on reality, or on the way in which the matters are dealt with by Scottish teachers.
Bob McKay (Association of Directors of Education in Scotland):
I worked in Strathclyde and in Tayside, and now work in Perth and Kinross. In those areas, there is no evidence from the past 15 years that any such material has ever been forwarded or presented to schools.
There are a number of major issues beneath the generality of this matter. If any such materials were ever to appear in a school, head teachers and teachers, who are highly competent professionals, would get in touch with their authority. The likelihood of the material secretly appearing and no one knowing about it is unsubstantiated by evidence and, more important, our experience as directors of education makes it clear to us that schools and head teachers would respond intelligently by contacting their authority.
Unfortunately, we have been sidetracked into an arid debate that has no real substance. As Gordon Jeyes was saying earlier, we are in danger of becoming punch-drunk from shadow boxing on this important issue. We need to engage instead in tolerance and equality. If we are to engage in discussions about sex education, it should be on an informed basis rather than on one of fear and paranoia, generated by an assertion that has no substance.
The argument from the other side is that the material that has been discussed is awaiting repeal, and that, once repeal comes, the danger is that the material could flood into schools. You have said that there are clear safeguards to prevent inappropriate materials coming in. Is there any evidence of inappropriate materials being used before 1988, in the experience of your association? Was section 2A necessary for Scottish schools in 1988?
Not that we are aware of. As has been well noted, concerns were expressed about the behaviour and the circulation of material in a couple of London boroughs. That led to a reaction which was specifically intended to polarise the debate. That has happened very successfully, 12 years later. However, that does not lead to a clarification of the issues.
There are many things that we would not wish to be promoted in schools. We wish there to be child-centred education, with young people being given the capacity to express themselves in a democracy. We should not be singling out any particular issue as an item of special fear. In the original discussion paper about the ethics bill, the strong argument was that section 2A was not just irrelevant, which we believe it is, but discriminatory, singling out homosexuals in a discriminatory clause, on no justification; that is, that it is a bad example. Children should not judge people by labels. None of us should do that. To make unacceptability the starting point in legislation is itself unacceptable.
A spurious logic seems to have emerged: that if it had not been for the 1988 legislation, the material talked about would have appeared. Anybody who went to their first class in their first year of logic at university would understand that the premise and the logic are false—apart from that it is a very sound argument. There was no such material before 1988; there has been nothing since 1988.
I would argue, on the basis of sound professionalism from teachers, sound direction from authorities and an effective parent partnership, that the 1988 legislation has been irrelevant to Scotland. It is unfortunate, therefore, that in a debate that is really about equity we get sucked into what are purportedly factual considerations, which are in fact the expression of prejudice.
You talked about empowering and working with parents. What is your advice to schools on managing differences of views among parents in relation to sex education? What options are available to parents if they remain unhappy with what is offered in schools?
Potentially, the most optimistic outcome of this debate would be if we could continue this level of parental interest in personal and social educational and encourage debate where it matters most—in schools.
I offer a comment on parental participation. School boards in Stirling, irrespective of their point of view on this issue, are unanimously of the opinion that they do not want the Scottish School Board Association to take a policy perspective. They find the association a helpful source of advice on the detail of running a school board, and useful in providing training or administrative back-up. The Parliament should be wary of the notion of parents' participation as that of the professional parent: self-evidently, there are as many different parents' views as there are citizens' views. After all, even directors and MSPs have children and do not necessarily agree on every matter.
The association also believes that the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 is an example of legislation that is far too prescriptive and detailed. I do not know of a school board that disagrees with me on that issue. That leads to all sorts of bureaucratic difficulties. Because school boards are sometimes set in their procedures, they can get in the way of parental participation. Parental participation should be based on the dynamic of the home-school partnership, to raise the level of achievement of the child at home and to support and help learning and the achievement of the child in the school.
The association will want to put forward a proposal on the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill, much of which is welcomed. However, ahead of the revision of the powers of schools boards, there should be a duty on schools and local authorities to encourage and enhance parental participation. It is difficult to get parents involved unless there is a threat that their school will be closed or that its budget will be cut.
We are all busy people. However, we must be serious about the way in which we transmit values from one generation to the next. Teachers cannot do that on their own. We need to have that debate, much of which will involve some compromise. The way in which I transmit values to my son, for example, is personal to me and will not be replicated exactly in the school that he attends. Nevertheless, I want him to be part of a well-educated society, and want him to attend a school with neighbours' children, even the children of those who have different views on this issue. For years, schools have dealt with that kind of compromise well, but increased parental participation will allow them to deal with it even better.
As former modern studies teachers, Gordon and I have already encountered challenges to what teachers teach. Thirty years ago, we were the enfants terribles of the secondary school curriculum.
I would like to approach your question from a slightly different angle. In part, the answer is open forward planning: we must tell parents what will be taught and we must involve them. Difficulties will arise if parents find out what is being taught by accident or by a partial account from their child, a neighbour or a helpful friend in the supermarket. Schools should be open to involving parents not only on this issue, but on all issues that concern the curriculum: the way in which young people learn, the way in which we assess young people and the way in which parents can contribute to that.
This issue should not be separated off as a special issue. Consultation with parents should be integral to the way in which we work. If we really believe that parents can make a difference, we should involve them as early and as often as possible. That is only one of the issues. If there are gaps in that strategy area, there are gaps in the whole strategy concerning the engagement with parents, their role in education and their contribution to it.
Some press coverage has given the impression that this is a bilateral issue, and there is a danger that we consider it in that way. I would like to remind everyone that young people have rights. They have the right to be educated and to be informed, and to have enough information to allow them to make choices and decisions. Part of the Scottish tradition has been to bring up young people in a system of autocracy, so that they will appreciate democracy when they get there. We should recognise that education has a dynamic; it has a triangulation involving young people, teachers and parents. We talk about ages and stages in education; part of that should involve education about growing into citizenship.
Last week, at a conference of school representatives, one of my colleagues commented on how mature and informed the young people were, and another commented on how worrying it was that we had to have such a conference to find that out. We do not afford young people enough opportunities to express their opinions. One of the gaps in the debate over the past few weeks has been the failure to consider young people as a legitimate constituency in this matter.
During a television programme last week, one young person from, I think, Balerno expressed some reservations on the repeal of section 28 and wished to see a balance. The rest had entirely sensible views on discrimination and of their right to know. They should be heard as loudly as some others have been heard.
Autocracy still reigns in the Scottish Executive; democracy has yet to penetrate. We will have to work on that—it is what we are here for.
My question covers some of the same ground as Johann Lamont's second question. Could you sketch out for me the present system of guidelines and how it might be improved? What part do the Scottish Executive education department, people such as yourselves, the head teachers, the teachers, the pupils and the parents play at present, and how could that be improved?
At present, there are detailed curricular guidelines on not only sex education but all aspects of health education, media studies, social subjects and other matters relating to a person's social education. There is also supplementary guidance on respect for the views of religious minorities, because once we get into the details of the transmission of values, there may be issues that the families of particular children do not wish to be addressed. For example, with children from the Muslim community, it is established practice that withdrawal from classes is possible. As Bob McKay has already said, it is existing good practice that the lesson discussion topics, the materials used and the videos watched should be shared with parents in advance, and the majority of schools are doing that.
We should move forward in the new circumstances of heightened awareness. That should begin at school level, with reassurances for parents based on the structure of devolved school management. We should ensure that everything is based on partnership, because these are matters for a primary school child that will not be addressed in five hours each school day. There should be a source of communication that they can take everywhere. I am talking about the way in which the school can help the family, as opposed to the other way around. I hope that guidance will stress the positive aspects of partnership and the way in which that has improved and developed over the past 10 years or so. The good practice of sharing information about sex education and values in education should become universal. If people are not reassured after having met guidance staff or other staff members, and if they raise objections, withdrawal always remains legitimate.
Is it possible for Perth or Stirling to develop slightly different guidelines or for schools within an authority to develop slightly different guidelines from each other's?
ADES would argue that prescriptive guidelines coming down from the centre do not work and that there must be a sense of ownership, which must be felt by parents as well as by schools. The responsibility for ensuring that the guidelines are fully reasoned out must rest with the community. My work in educational management has involved me with many rural communities and I believe that individual communities, too, must resolve the issue themselves.
Guidelines could vary between schools, provided that all shades of opinion are taken into account. Majority groups have to be careful that they do not prescribe in too much detail the values in the guidelines. Minority groups must not be excluded or alienated and intolerance must not be encouraged.
It is important to state that guidelines and guidance should provide parameters, not prescription. There must be a degree of flexibility to allow the diversity of communities in Scotland to be recognised.
For the last 30 or 40 years, Scottish education has worked well with a system of guidelines and guidance. Bearing in mind the principle of subsidiarity, we can see that the system rightly encourages dialogue. Bottom-up development can inform central development. Prescription destroys that two-way process and undermines the local authority and, consequently, the discretion of the head teacher.
There is a suggestion that we should try to find neat and easy solutions, but democracy means that the majority rule should have regard for the minority right. We have to have in place models that allow us to do that. There are as many reasons for an issue to be raised in a school as there are parents and we need parameters within which we can engage in dialogue with the parents. We seek to persuade and inform; prescription inhibits that.
We have to have a well-informed, self-regulating profession that informs up the way, not one that obeys a cascading set of prescriptions. Scottish education can be proud of the way in which it has taken forward guidance and guidelines. We have done better than other countries where an ethos of prescription has reigned. When we have got into difficulties in the past 10 to 15 years, it has been because prescription has been more apparent than guidelines. There has to be dialogue with young people and parents, not centralised prescription.
I agree with what Bob McKay said about the piece of legislation being an irrelevant one that was imposed on Scotland. What impact, if any, has section 2A had on the social development of children?
For many schools, the repeal will have no effect whatsoever because the section has been largely ignored. However, members of parent forums have informed us that, as a consequence of this debate, schools have become anxious about dealing with cases of homophobic bullying because of their understanding—or misunderstanding—of the legislation. Repeal will not have an immediate effect, apart from sending a message that we do not want legislation that is based on discrimination; but it will have an eventual effect on the way in which incidents of bullying are addressed. Labelling and name-calling are insidious and language is powerful.
I suspect that if, before the possibility of repeal arose, we had asked teachers in Scotland to write down everything that they knew about section 2A, 95 per cent would not have been able to write down much. That is a demonstration of the impact that the legislation had in Scotland.
However, on the occasions when it has surfaced, it has had a negative effect. It is a piece of legislation that focuses in a discriminatory way on a group of people and it is from that point that all of the caricatures emerge. Although the section had no impact most of the time, on the occasions that it did, it undermined teachers' professional judgment. Guidance and guidelines should have a positive purpose rather than a negative and discriminatory one.
Do you agree that, where there has been an awareness of the legislation, the social development of children has been hindered as they have been unable to discuss their feelings with teachers?
Yes.
Yes.
While Bob McKay might have been an enfant terrible 30 years ago, I recall Gordon Jeyes as an élève normal. As an historian, it is interesting to be faced by two modern studies aficionados.
We have all given a lot of consideration to this matter. I have cast my mind back to my 12 years as a head teacher in Glasgow and thought of how members of my staff would have dealt with this topic. I do not want to suggest that my staff was perfect—and I would not want any of them to pick up that notion now—but I can think of no member of my staff whom I would not have trusted to handle the topic sensitively and appropriately. I believe that the teacher and the parent have to co-operate to work out how to deal with the matter.
I welcome the fact that you have said that the guidelines could differ according to the context in which teachers found themselves. It might be useful, however, if you could explain to us how people who transgress the guidelines would be handled.
That area is improving and developing. We want to have a culture that encourages complaint so that we are aware of areas that could be improved. Many authorities have mechanisms whereby parents can share concerns. However, work still needs to be done, as parents in many parts of the country still feel hesitant about doing so for fear of how their child might be viewed.
If a teacher was judged to be promoting a lifestyle or activity that was considered to be inappropriate, that would be taken up in the teacher's review and, if necessary, the teacher would be subject to disciplinary procedures. As I said before, there are many areas of life that it would be inappropriate for teachers to promote. Promotion of such areas, including aspects of heterosexual activity, would have to be tackled robustly, and use of things such as the internet will have to be scrutinised closely.
The legitimate dimension of professional autonomy is informed by an explicit expectation of professional behaviour. I want to make sure that every parent, teacher and young person is conversant with the guidelines, because that will lead to informed discussion and will both reduce the number of complaints that turn out not to be complaints and legitimise justifiable ones. Where such a complaint arises, the head teacher should deal with it as manager of the school. However, the local authority has a clear responsibility if the complaint is so serious that the sanctions to be considered fall outwith the head teacher's powers.
We would endorse the current review of disciplinary procedures within a framework that ensures that parents, teachers and young people understand the interdependence of their responsibilities. However, such cases should be dealt with no differently from other circumstances where teachers do not behave properly. The procedure should be integral to the operation of our schools and educational authorities instead of being a new detailed mechanism for a specific issue. That would not work.
Organisations opposed to repeal have given evidence that some authorities and schools in Scotland—I think that one of the schools was in Inverness—have seized materials that they have considered inappropriate. Do you have any information on that?
We have also heard evidence that parents are not aware of the right to withdraw children from sex education classes and that there is a general misunderstanding about parents' rights to have a say on what is taught in schools. Can you expand on that?
The answer to your first question is straightforward—there are no examples of any Scottish school using the materials that have caused offence. Although I am not aware of the Inverness example that you mention, I know that Fife Council was pilloried for ordering the material so that officers could find out what the fuss was about, which seemed only reasonable. When the council finally received an apology from the press, it was at the foot of page 10. That is an example of how the matter can be misrepresented.
As for your second question, sections of the community that hold strong views on these matters—in multi-ethnic schools in Glasgow, for example—will know about the right to withdraw from certain aspects of sex education. However, when parents are given the opportunity to examine the material, they are often reassured. When it comes to sex, everyone in Scotland has their Calvinist side—although I do not mean that in a religious sense. In particular, when it comes to homosexuality, tolerance and the challenge of equal opportunities, people who are more than 40 years old have to reinvent themselves daily and learn how to judge others by their character and attributes instead of by labels. Although that is difficult and demanding, parents are reassured when they read the material. Sex education material used in Scotland is within a Scottish tradition that many people might describe as tame, and that situation will stay that way for a long time yet.
Are there any cases where teachers might have been inhibited in teaching sex education, or where they felt that they could not teach certain aspects of sex education because section 2A put them under threat?
I have responded to that to some extent already. Some parents have told me that, when they expressed concerns about homophobic bullying, the school's response was not satisfactory.
I chair the steering group of the Scottish Executive's anti-bullying network, and it could be argued that some name calling is harmless. For example, most of the pupils called me a poof when I first started teaching in the east end of Glasgow, and the other teachers said, "If that's the worst thing that they call you, it's okay." However, language is powerful. In the same school, because I was recruited the day before term started, I was given the classes that nobody else wanted. Other teachers read my timetable and said, "Ah, you've got the third-year slashers today, and tomorrow you've got the fourth-year slashers"; I could not understand where such pejorative slang came from. In fact, the timetabler listed O-grade classes with an O and non-certificate classes with an O with a stroke through it. The power of language and the way in which young people are labelled are very important; children throw labels at other children because of their lack of understanding of sexuality, and teachers' ability to tackle that problem is inhibited by this unnecessary section.
Do teachers currently wait until they receive a complaint about bullying before they take action? Would the repeal of section 2A mean that steps could be taken before bullying happened?
The section causes unnecessary uncertainty which makes dealing with incidents of bullying less straightforward. Because it creates such inhibition, it should be repealed.
When dealing with a case of homophobic bullying, a teacher who is informed about section 28 could be unnecessarily prescribed by it. The fundamental problem with this legislation is that it means that recognition is unacceptable. It is difficult to see how a guidance teacher tackling this problem with a teenager can be professionally supportive without recognising that homosexuality exists and should be considered equitably in our society. If teachers responsible for social education had been aware of section 28, it would have inhibited them to the detriment of the interests of young people, not the interests of supposed homosexual teachers who wished to promote their sexuality. At the heart of the argument for repeal is the right of children and young people to be supported and to be educated in a non-discriminatory environment.
Thank you for your evidence. This has developed into an informative and rational debate, and I hope that the media will take note of some of the points that you raise.
I want to ask about the guidelines. First, the guidelines for five to 14-year-olds are relatively recent. Although Bob McKay said that there was a lot of flexibility within the current parameters, is not it true that commentators and teachers have said that the five-to-14 guidelines are far more prescriptive than before? I say that as a former secondary school science teacher, and I know that primary school teachers have said the same.
Secondly, what happens at the post-14 stage? Much of the debate has been about the guidelines for those aged between five and 14. I think that people are unclear about what guidelines there are at secondary school. The post-14 stage is very important, particularly for personal and social development.
Thirdly, Donald Gorrie raised an important point to which I do not think we received an answer: what is the role of Her Majesty's inspectorate in this process, particularly in relation to upholding the guidelines?
In a recent constructive discussion with Her Majesty's chief inspector, it was agreed that the role of inspectors should be to seek effectiveness rather than compliance. There have been difficulties in recent years because guidelines have become prescriptive. We alluded to the fact earlier that, where the process becomes more centralised and prescriptive, it becomes less effective. There have been tensions in some areas in the past 10, 12 or 15 years—what have purported to be guidelines have been straitjackets rather than parameters. We are having an on-going and constructive professional dialogue with HMI.
Some authorities have sought greater flexibility than others. That is inevitable in the way in which we work. On the five-to-14 guidelines and the argument about flexibility and prescription, prescription has been perceived in some areas—science or whatever must be included in a particular form—but there is a wide range of areas in which there is greater flexibility for the classroom teacher, in terms of exemplar material, the order of development and so on. However, that is a professional debate, which begins from the premise that we are trying to work out the best way of using guidelines. I have difficulty with the term "statutory guidelines" because it is an oxymoron. By its nature, anything statutory will be prescriptive.
The opportunity should be taken to get a consistency of flexibility, which, I agree, is not present at the moment. The availability of guidelines rather than prescription has allowed greater flexibility. For example, in the debate on assessment and testing, the five-to-14 guidelines have allowed Scottish teachers to argue for the wider dimensions of assessment and to use testing as a part of assessment at a certain stage. We do not always get it right but, as long as there are guidelines, we have the opportunity to get it right—we have a negotiated model at local level. If the principle of guidelines is taken away, the possibility of having that diversity and flexibility is removed.
I am happy to admit that guidelines for post-14s are more difficult. There will be schools in which social education and sex education have room for improvement. I think that good practice will develop in some of the community school models—not least because teachers become anxious about these issues with older teenagers—in which multi-disciplinary teams and a health presence, subject to the usual caveats of parental knowledge, can have a greater input. We should try not to be dependent on the teachers; we should give the teachers scope to do what they are good at, and leave scope for others to become involved. In the next few years, as we examine core skills and the way in which we help the development of the young person, there will be a balancing out rather than the total domination of attainment evidence. There will be consideration of the whole citizen, who is ready to participate and to be a learner for life rather than to jump through hoops to hit their targets and to help the school hit its targets. There is big debate to be had about effective sex education.
I agree that the five-to-14 guidelines are far too detailed—death by 1,000 attainment targets. However, they include a lot of sound advice. We should keep the model straightforward. Society, through its representatives, should say what it expects. On this issue, it is quite clear that parents expect reassurance, children expect involvement and there should be a system without discrimination. The process of how that is achieved in detail can be let go of, provided that there is good-quality assurance in place and that we measure success by the outcome that young people make decisions based on evidence and on a clear value system and that they are tolerant and respectful—as they are. We must base our education system on a set of entitlements. Young people must take responsibility for themselves, for their learning, for each other, for their school and for their community so that they graduate as young citizens.
That may seem a far cry from what we are here to discuss, but I do not think that it is. This issue is not just about trusting teachers, about which we have heard throughout this debate, but about trusting young people to make sense of all the messages that they receive from the world, with assistance from the family and teachers. We should not leave everything to the internet or some late-night television programme.
I will add a small rider to that. At the post-14 stage, the rights of young people and the individual needs that arise are more involved. The guidance connection is important, as well as general social education. The ages and stages are about young people—how they progress and how their needs are met. On Gordon's last point, Daniel Goleman argues that what we aspire to within any organisation is trustworthiness, which is a competence that is based on self-regulation. At the post-14 stage, and generally, we should allow professionals to self-regulate and young people increasingly to self-regulate. That framework will give us positive citizenship. On the evidence that we have from across the world, the prescriptive model does not work, although it sometimes make the older adults happy that they are seen to be prescribing.
In the final analysis, parents can remove children from sex education if that is what they wish to do. I have been impressed, as were Sylvia Jackson and other members, by the fact that this has been a civilised and child-centred debate—that is what this committee is about. You said that good practice means sharing with parents in advance so that they do not learn about things from their children. I am sure that there is much good practice in schools. Children should be at the heart of the issue; the committee or another committee may want to address the fact, which you pointed out, that young people have not been involved in this dialogue. As one of the witnesses said, this is about not what older people think but what younger people do. We cannot make a statement such as that without asking the views of young people. This has been a very informative session and I thank you for coming.
We will now have an initial discussion to crystallise our thoughts on what we will ask Frank McAveety when he comes to the committee on 28 March. I know that members have received a paper that was produced by Morag Brown. Members may wish to take a couple of minutes to look at it before we discuss it.
Given the fact that we have just received this paper and most, if not all members, have not had the chance to read it, it would be inappropriate for members to try to absorb it in a couple of minutes and then respond to it. I realise that we do not have a committee meeting scheduled for next week—although we did have—but if the matter is urgent I do not see why we cannot meet for half an hour, once we have had a chance to absorb what is in the paper. I do not think that it would be appropriate to deal with it now, as we have not had time to consider it.
We may not be able to meet for half an hour next week, because you and I are away for three days.
We are not away on Tuesday—only on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
We could get round that by having a private meeting on Tuesday, at which the official reporters would not need to be present.
I am happy with that, if everyone else is.
Would that suit everybody else?
As long as the meeting is not at 2 o'clock, when the European Committee is meeting. I have already missed one meeting of that committee.
I would be happy for us to meet at a time that would suit everybody.
When we get on to housekeeping issues, we can argue about when we should meet.