Education and Culture Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Official Report 466KB pdf

---

Work Programme

Item 3 is to discuss our future work programme. The clerks have prepared a paper showing the current work programme as agreed. Members now have the opportunity to discuss that paper and any other areas that they wish to suggest.

I will begin the discussion by referring members to annex A of the work programme paper, which is a response from BBC Scotland to the evidence that was presented to the committee on 30 October by the trade unions. As members will be aware, we requested on more than one occasion that BBC management come to give oral evidence to the committee, but they declined to do so and have instead submitted a written rebuttal of the unions’ evidence, if I can put it in that fashion. Do members have any comments on this area?

I think that it is quite an insulting way to treat us. The BBC is rebutting the trade unionists in a way that allows it to control how it is examined by the committee.

In spite of the statement from the BBC that the convener read out earlier that stated that it intended no disrespect to the Parliament—

I am sorry, but I did that prior to the start of the meeting. For the Official Report, I say that the BBC sent a response to us saying that it was not willing to come to the committee on this issue but meant no disrespect to the committee. I will just give the exact wording so that we are clear on it and so that members are aware of what has happened. The statement said:

“We would respectfully decline the invitation to attend an evidence session with the Education and Culture Committee for the reasons set out within the conclusions to the paper submitted earlier this week. This, in no sense, is intended to be or should be regarded as disrespect towards the Parliament.”

I am sorry, Colin, but I just wanted to ensure that everybody was aware of what was said.

I apologise. I forgot that you read that out prior to the start of the meeting.

To me, it is disrespect. The BBC has been asked several times by the committee to appear and it has had the opportunity to do so. It has responded in writing, but that is no substitute for the committee having it here and being able to take evidence directly from it. What the BBC has done is disrespectful.

I echo that comment. In its conclusion, the BBC reiterates the reasons why it did not attend, but the fact that it has submitted written evidence, which is quite helpful in providing a context for what we heard the other week from the union representatives, slightly undermines the reasons that it set out for not appearing. I think that the BBC has entirely needlessly got itself on a bit of a spike here.

I think that this is dreadful. I cannot think of another publicly funded organisation that, having been asked to come before the committee, would respond in such a manner. Frankly, I think that it is outrageous that the BBC has done that. If we allow the situation to degenerate to the point at which we are having committee meetings by correspondence, we are in a very sticky situation. I do not know whether this is a precedent or whether it has happened before—I am sure that it probably has—but if we now have organisations that simply say, “No, we don’t want to appear before you, but we’ll send you a letter,” that questions the system that we have here.

Convener, can you update us on whether the matter has been discussed by the Conveners Group in relation to not just the BBC but witnesses at parliamentary committees in general?

It was raised briefly earlier in the session as something that we should keep an eye on. As you know, there have been a couple of cases, particularly as far as this committee is concerned, in which people who had been approached to be witnesses declined to come forward. However, the issue seems to have receded since then and, as far as I am aware, this is the only case in recent times.

The committee’s general and I think pretty unanimous feeling is that this does not help the scrutiny process of the Parliament and the committee system in particular. As a result, I suggest that we raise the general issue.

That is helpful. Just for clarity, I point out that I sought guidance on whether we could make a stronger request or indeed require the people in question to attend. However, that is outwith the Parliament’s powers. I certainly cannot force the BBC to attend the committee—we just do not have the authority—and we are therefore left with the current situation in which the BBC has declined to attend and has instead provided a written submission.

The question for the committee is, as we are about to discuss, what we do about that. We have a number of options: we can do nothing and leave things as they are; we can write back to the BBC with various questions and points that the committee might want to raise; we can write and publish a report; and we can seek a debate in the chamber before or after the publication of that report. I seek guidance and comments from committee members on those options.

Do Westminster committees have powers to bring people before them?

Yes, I believe so.

The explanations for non-appearance seem to be a combination of, “We’ve already appeared before the committee on this issue,” and, “It would be inappropriate to carry out industrial relations negotiations in a public forum such as a parliamentary committee.” However, the BBC has undermined its second argument with its written submission and, as for the first argument, the question whether its appearance is appropriate is surely a judgment for the committee. It is of course up to the BBC what it chooses to say or not to say when it comes before us; after all, we have had plenty of witnesses who have indicated that there is territory that, for whatever reason, they do not feel able to go into. We can only imagine how the BBC would cover this if another witness were involved, and I think that we should impress that point on it.

I certainly agree. I think that the BBC’s evidence is unhelpful and has indeed undermined its own argument. In any case, as members will be aware and will agree, the committee would not discuss or debate private negotiations between a trade union and management on wages, conditions or redundancy packages and I do not accept that that is a valid argument for not attending the committee. Indeed, I think that that is what Liam McArthur has just indicated.

What do members wish to do with this?

I recommend that you as convener—on the committee’s behalf, obviously, as the feeling is unanimous—directly appeal to the highest authority in the BBC; indicate our disappointment; suggest that, whatever our views on the matter might be, in the lead-up to the referendum debate it does not help good scrutiny of, as someone has pointed out, a public institution if it will not appear before the committee; and make strong representation that the decision be reversed.

11:30

I am happy to do that, although we have asked the BBC to give evidence twice recently.

If we were in another Parliament, it would be compelled to appear—

It would not have to be compelled—it would appear.

I am happy to do what is suggested. One option is to write, and we have already written. Helpfully, the clerk has just handed me the most recent letter that I sent to the then director general on 2 November—the postholder has changed since then. How do members feel about writing in the way that Liz Smith suggested?

I endorse what Liz Smith suggested. Is the highest authority the BBC trust’s chairman, Lord Patten, if he is responsible for governance?

We can write to either the chairman or the director general and copy the letter to the other person. If the committee is minded to write, we will work out who to write to and copy in the other individual.

Will you give us a look at the draft letter before it is sent?

Of course. The letter would be circulated for members’ agreement before it was submitted in my name, on the committee’s behalf.

What do members feel about the evidence that has been received? Do we want to begin to write our report?

I say yes. We have given the BBC ample opportunity to get involved. Its response says that

“there was little ... to add”,

but it has given us about an extra 10 pages of word-for-word quotes of everything that was said. We should go on with our report. The BBC has been given an opportunity to appear.

I agree with George Adam that we should carry on. There is no immediate prospect of the BBC coming to the table, so it will have to take the consequences if there is anything in the report on which it would have wanted to give evidence.

Nothing prevents us from doing both things. If we start to draft the report, it will not be available for publication immediately, as we will have to consider it. At the same time, we could write in the way that Liz Smith proposed. If the BBC reverses its decision and comes to give evidence, that will help the committee in producing its report. If it refuses for a third time, we can finish our report. Do members agree to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Another issue that has emerged in the past two weeks relates to college regionalisation and reform. The committee will be aware that I received a letter from the four Opposition members on the committee, which was circulated along with my response last week. I circulated that letter to members immediately because it was in the public domain and so that members could see it.

Before receiving that letter, I received correspondence from Mr Findlay, which said:

“Dear Convener,

Given the weekend coverage of the call by the Cabinet Secretary, Mike Russell for the Chair of Stow College to resign, I would urge you, as Chair of the Education and Culture committee to recall the Cabinet Secretary to the committee to give evidence on this episode as part of our sessions on the colleges and the regionalisation agenda.”

My response to Mr Findlay said:

“It would be my intention to call the Cabinet Secretary to appear before the committee on the issue of college reform and I think we may have already agreed to do that when we discussed the work programme recently. I am sure there are a number of witnesses we would want to hear from on the regionalisation issue.”

When did you receive that correspondence?

The email from Mr Findlay came at 5 pm on 12 November and I responded at 10 to 8 the same evening. The letter was dated 14 November, which was a Wednesday, but I did not receive it on that day. Members will be aware that the letter was with the press on Wednesday at lunch time, when I was made aware of it through comments by journalists on Twitter. It subsequently appeared in the press on the Thursday. Neither I nor the clerks had received it by the afternoon of 15 November, but then I—luckily—bumped into Liam McArthur and I asked him for a copy of it. The media relations officer for the committee was being asked for comment and a response to the letter from me, as the convener. The letter was in the public domain with journalists on the Wednesday lunch time, and I eventually received it some 25 or 26 hours later, on the Thursday afternoon.

I was very disappointed that Twitter knew about the letter before the committee did.

It is unfortunate that, for whatever reason, the letter appeared in the press and in social media forums before it was received by the committee, either by the clerks or by me. That is unfortunate, but it is by the by. That happened last week. We now have, in effect, two bits of correspondence on the same matter. I ask members to comment on those issues, given that they now have all the information that I have.

As we develop our work programme, there is an issue about the scrutiny process in general. There are various issues in the Parliament at the moment about what constitutes effective scrutiny and its publication. Joan McAlpine has also raised an important point. It is absolutely right and proper that there should be the correct timescale.

Generally speaking, I think that there is an issue about the scrutiny process in any committee of the Parliament, not just this one. I had cause to look at various bits of the standing orders recently, and I understand that we must ensure that the convener of any committee represents the views of their committee. Therefore, any statement that is made on our behalf must be agreed to. That has not been the case over the past two weeks, and not just within this committee. We must be careful, when we develop our work programme, that the correct witnesses are brought to the committee, that the cabinet secretary has a specific role that is very clearly laid out and that the convener has a specific role. We must also be careful in how we approach not only the study of an issue but the decision making in reaching our conclusions. That is something that we need to tighten up on.

Thank you. Do other members have comments?

I echo the comment that I made to you privately, convener, about the timeframe within which the letter was received and reiterate the apology for that discourtesy, although I suggest that it is perhaps a little synthetic of Joan McAlpine to complain about those particular inconsistencies.

As Liz Smith says, there are wider concerns about the scrutiny process. It was not helpful that, on the back of the decision by Kirk Ramsay to resign, you found yourself on a programme with a story that was changing by the hour. That put the committee in a difficult position, as you were represented as the convener of the committee rather than a spokesman for your party. I have no real concerns about the ability of the committee to undertake its role to date. We have had healthy and robust discussions on a range of issues and have had the opportunity to express our differences of opinion where appropriate.

On the issue that arose around the cabinet secretary’s behaviour in relation to the chair of Stow College, there is a commonly held view that the cabinet secretary’s behaviour towards some of the leading figures in the college sector goes beyond what is healthy and needs to be looked at, not simply in relation to the reform programme and regionalisation, which command wider support than Mr Russell sometimes seeks to portray. When a cabinet secretary demands the resignation of a college chair, that throws up serious questions about his judgment and the relationship that he has with the sector. Therefore, I think that it is worthy of specific review by the committee.

Given the resignation of the chair of Stow College and the issues around college funding in recent weeks, I agree that we must not only look at the college regionalisation agenda but have further evidence sessions on the culture within FE and the relationship between the Government or cabinet secretary and the colleges. That certainly needs to be investigated in further evidence sessions.

Convener, for me the issue is that you made public statements, without any discussion with committee members—certainly not with me as deputy convener—in which you dismissed the idea that the committee would look at the issue further. That is a problem for the integrity of the committee and how the committee conducts itself. Many of us have a worry about that.

I am happy to respond to that. I expressed my view on the information as it was available at the time. Clearly, it is always the case—that is why I have put this item on the agenda—that the committee decides these things. I expressed my view, not the view of the committee. I thought, and still think, that the position that I expressed at the time was based on the evidence that was available.

As I said to Mr McArthur in the earlier discussion to which he alluded, it is unfortunate that it was portrayed that I had some sort of power to block the committee’s decision. I do not have such a power and I did not say that I have such a power—of course, the issue is for the committee to decide—and I accept that that is unfortunate. I certainly do not want members to feel that I was trying to speak on their behalf or override their rights to discuss these matters or decide the committee’s work programme. That is why I immediately requested that a discussion of the work programme should be on the first available committee agenda.

Convener, thank you for clarifying that point. Given that your comments were made prior to other evidence appearing about difficulties with the numbers and various data that we were provided with, might you have changed your mind since then?

I will answer that specific point, but let me first ask whether any other members want to speak.

First, I think that the fact that the letter appeared on Twitter and in the press before it was made available to the committee convener shows that it is a politically motivated initiative.

On the criticisms of the convener, I think that the convener has always conducted himself impeccably. Not everything that we say should be interpreted as the view of the committee. The deputy convener often says things that I disagree with, but as a committee member I do not think that when he talks about various aspects of education he is speaking for me.

On the scrutiny provided by the committee, I think that our budget report, when it is published, will show that the committee is a very effective vehicle for scrutiny. Given that our work programme includes looking at college regionalisation, I think that the scrutiny of that issue will be as robust as anything that we have done. There will be an opportunity to look at the issue then.

As Joan McAlpine has said, we need only look at the report that we recently finished on our scrutiny of the budget, in relation to which the convener dealt with matters with patience—

For everyone’s benefit—I know that you are probably not going to reveal anything—I should say that the budget report is still confidential, as it has not yet been published and is still with the Finance Committee. Before we go on, I just want to ensure that no one discusses any details of our budget report.

11:45

I had no intention of doing so, convener.

I am sure that you did not, Mr Adam, but I just wanted to make sure.

We have had hours and hours of discussion and I think that it stands as a perfect example of how you have taken things forward in an inclusive manner. You certainly showed a lot more patience than I would have in your position, and I have no doubt about the work that you have done.

I also agree with Joan McAlpine. When other committee members—particularly Mr Findlay, who appears quite regularly on various channels—say things on television, they are not necessarily speaking for the committee. On the whole, I do not think that that is an issue.

You must be watching different channels to me, then, George.

Forgive me, convener, but that is a separate issue. We can speak as spokesmen for our parties, but that is not the same as speaking for the committee.

It is a separate matter. I do not want to have an extended discussion on an issue that is not central to the work programme. This item is about the work programme, and our discussion should stick to that subject.

I support comments that Joan McAlpine and George Adam have made. Liam McArthur mentioned a common consent about where we are with certain matters, but I absolutely disagree with him. There is no comment consent. There might be calls in certain areas, but the very robust evidence that the committee has taken from the college sector should allay some of the concerns that have been expressed. A lot of these issues were aired in last week’s chamber debate, which the Liberal Democrats asked for, and the previous debate, and there are many opportunities to question the cabinet secretary on these matters in the chamber. The work programme is in place, and I am sure that it will be robust enough if the committee wishes to ask any questions.

I have been a member of this committee for only a short time but, in that period, I have had no reason to be concerned about its convenership. However, like other members, I am concerned about the timescale for the presentation of the letter to the convener, which does not seem to have been particularly well done. The letter itself seems to continue allegations about which not a single scrap of evidence has as yet been produced. As for its reference to a

“culture of secrecy, bullying and intimidation”,

those are emotive words but, when the newspapers went around the colleges, they were unable to bring up a single person to support such statements. In light of that, I tend to agree with Joan McAlpine that this is politically motivated.

I think that that sums up our case. If we have an inquiry, we will find out what the evidence is. It might well come up with nothing but I note in the transcript of an interview with the convener that he said, “The purpose of an inquiry is to find out the facts,” which is what I think is being asked for. The interviewer then said, “Right, you’re saying no,” to which the convener replied, “Yes, because the facts are not in dispute in this case.” So the issue has already been decided.

I am sorry but, as I said earlier, I do not want to get into this matter. This is a discussion about the work programme. In the interview, I was responding to a question about my view on the issue. That is my view on it. Can we stick to the matter in hand, which is the work programme?

It is dangerous to suggest that this is politically motivated. I cannot speak for others, but I am certain that if a Labour or Liberal Democrat minister had called into his office a chair of a college and demanded his resignation, there would be calls from each of the SNP members of this committee for some form of inquiry if not into that specific incident then into the relationship between ministers and the sector. I do not believe that this is politically motivated and think that there are sufficient concerns to address.

It should surprise no one that a series of college principals has not popped up on the airwaves in recent days to denounce the cabinet secretary. However, at least a couple of the other chairs have expressed concern about the education secretary’s management style, and a number of trade unions at specific colleges have expressed grave concern. That is sufficient to suggest that some form of inquiry is justified.

As I said, the problem might have been triggered by the reforms and regionalisation, but it goes wider than that. Some members were made aware of concerns in the primary and secondary sector about the implementation of curriculum for excellence, in particular, which speak to the concerns that have emerged from the college sector.

I dispute the suggestion that the initiative is politically motivated. There is justification for an inquiry into the cabinet secretary’s relationship with the college sector. I do not think that such work would sit comfortably with a wider investigation into regionalisation, but if that is where it needs to sit we will find a way of accommodating it.

Representatives of all the trade unions gave evidence during the budget process. As I recall, the Educational Institute of Scotland’s spokesman for the further and higher education sectors was pretty critical of the Government. He did not appear to be intimidated: he criticised the Government’s approach but he said nothing about bullying and intimidation. None of our witnesses has said anything about bullying and intimidation, either in our budget meetings or in meetings last year, when we heard from several college principals. I do not know where the concerns are coming from, given that in all the critical evidence that we heard, bullying was not mentioned.

Does Liam McArthur want to respond to that? I do not want to curtail debate on the issue; I want to give members as much opportunity as they want to make points. I am quite happy for you to come back in, if you want to do so.

We invited the EIS to give evidence and to answer questions on the budget. Had that meeting taken place after the events in relation to Kirk Ramsay, I think that we might have been inclined to pursue a line of inquiry in that regard, and I suspect that we would have got a different response. The argument that there is no case to answer because Larry Flanagan did not mention the issue when he gave evidence on the budget does not stack up.

Enough has happened in the context of the events relating to the chair of Stow College and issues that a number of members have picked up anecdotally. I accept what Clare Adamson said about there being no common consent, but I think that enough of us have heard similar stories from across the college sector and other parts of the education landscape to suggest that we are entirely justified in asking that work be done by the committee.

We have heard concerns about the Scottish Government’s and the cabinet secretary’s dealings with colleges. We should have an inquiry, in which we gather the evidence and find out what is happening to that relationship. It would be wrong to dismiss what we have heard and what has gone on during the past few weeks. There are issues that need to be looked at and it would be wrong to sweep them under the carpet.

I know that we are heading into the panto season, but we have to focus on what is important. We are dealing with the reform of further education, and a lot of the good work that has been going on has been lost in the personality politics that we have witnessed, in which we know the public do not want to get involved. They will start to think that everyone is as bad as everyone else. We have to move away from that, because in the current scenario all that is happening is that Parliament, the committee and everyone else are being dragged into a bun fight.

That is not what we are here for; we are here to ensure that we make a difference to education in Scotland. We need to kiss and make up and get on with it. Larry Flanagan has made that point. The important point is that we have to move ahead, see what we can do and get on with the debate and with proper politics, as opposed to personality politics.

Convener, will you read out the Labour group’s original proposal again, just so that we can keep it in mind?

I will sum up the proposals that are before us, but I first ask whether members have any other comments.

I want to put on the public record again that I think that the issue is scrutiny; it is not to do with personalities. There is a fundamental issue about scrutiny of a cabinet secretary and how he or she operates in the sectors. I am not commenting one way or the other, but we have a significant concern of which we need to be mindful, so I very much agree with Liam McArthur’s points.

I want to respond to that point on the record. The cabinet secretary has had two debates on colleges in which it was possible to scrutinise him. He is also answering questions; I believe that, for education portfolio questions this week, every single question is on college reform, and I understand that topical question time last week ran over because there were questions about college reform and the Presiding Officer allowed many supplementary questions. No one can doubt that the cabinet secretary has been put under considerable scrutiny, and we will have an opportunity to scrutinise him again when the committee covers college regionalisation.

Everybody has had their say.

There has been correspondence between Mr Findlay and me. It was not in the public domain, which is why I did not circulate it, but everybody now has a copy. I hope that everybody heard me the first time but, for Colin Beattie’s benefit, I will read it again. It states:

“Given the weekend coverage of the call by the Cabinet Secretary, Mike Russell for the Chair of Stow College to resign. I would urge you, as Chair of the Education and Culture committee to recall the Cabinet Secretary to the committee to give evidence on this episode as part of our sessions on the colleges and the regionalisation agenda.”

It is clear that we have a difference of opinion on the work programme. On the work programme more widely, we have already agreed to do a number of things. We still have to deal with the Donaldson review of teacher education. We have asked members to suggest possible witnesses; some members have responded, for which I am grateful. We also have the post-16 education reform bill, which I believe will be published this week and will come to us in the new year. Those are the main items. I will not go through all the others—the paper sets them out. We have our current inquiry into the decision-making process in removing children from the parental home, as well as some petitions, secondary legislation and other matters. That is the current work programme.

In effect, we have two proposals on the same issue. One, which was originally made by the Labour Party, is that we ask the cabinet secretary to

“give evidence on this episode as part of our sessions on the colleges and the regionalisation agenda.”

We then had a subsequent letter and the further comments today. I am paraphrasing but, in effect, the second suggestion is that we have a separate inquiry on the issue. I think that Liz Smith talked about a “scrutiny process”. That is what has been suggested.

We have a number of options. To sum up, we can do one or the other, or we can do neither, or we can do something else. How do members wish to proceed? I leave the issue in your hands. I ask members to say what they would prefer to do and when they would prefer to do it.

My preference is to have something that would stand apart from our work on college regionalisation. There would be a requirement to do that sooner rather than later, notwithstanding the work to which we are already committed in relation to the inquiry. That might be before the Christmas recess or immediately after it, but that would be the timeframe.

My preferred option is to make it part of the discussion about college regionalisation that we are going to have anyway. We can discuss everything, whether it is through the bill or whatever, and we can have the debate then. I think that that is the most important thing, as was stated earlier.

Just for clarity, what is your suggested timescale?

I think that we have options with the bill. We also have further education in the work programme for later, but if we are going to discuss issues with regard to colleges, we may as well do it when we have the bill in January.

12:00

I was just double checking. I do not want to overstep my authority, but my expectation is that we will agree to look at the bill as soon as possible and that stage 1 will begin in January. However, we have not seen the bill yet, so we cannot say that for certain.

I have given the matter quite a bit of thought while members have been talking. It would be good to reach consensus. Possibly the best way forward would be to adopt the Labour Party’s original proposal; proper scrutiny would take place and we would have the cabinet secretary back to discuss the matter. We should do that as soon as we can fit it into the work programme. I hope that that will mean that there is something for everybody.

My preference is for an inquiry with further evidence sessions, including one with the cabinet secretary on his relationship with colleges and the wider colleges regionalisation agenda.

I support Neil Bibby’s proposal.

I am fine with that.

Which proposal do you support?

I support what Liam McArthur and the two Neils said.

Thank you.

I back the Labour Party’s original proposal. We will have an opportunity to question the cabinet secretary during our discussions on college regionalisation as part of bill scrutiny.

Okay. I will come back to that.

I have to go along with doing the work within our scrutiny of the bill. What has been asked for is an inquiry into the cabinet secretary’s relationship with the colleges and the regionalisation model. The regionalisation model is covered in the work programme, and I certainly do not think that the committee’s time should be tied up in looking at what is, in effect, a management-style issue.

Thank you. Just for clarity, and to be fair, the original email from Mr Findlay talked about taking evidence during our sessions on the colleges and regionalisation agenda. We had not set a timescale for them, although I think that we were probably anticipating that they would be at some point later in 2013. I have to say that, under the circumstances, I do not think that it would be reasonable to wait until then, and I presume that that would not be acceptable to Labour Party members, either. I accept that things have moved on from the original discussion.

Yes—things have moved on quite significantly from that first email, and that is why the subsequent letter followed.

That is what I am saying; I accept that. It is obvious that there is not going to be agreement round the table about the two proposals that were submitted—one by Neil Findlay on behalf of the Labour Party, and then the letter to which he was joint signatory. That is not surprising.

If I interpret the situation correctly, we have two proposals. One is to have a separate inquiry, as proposed by the Opposition members, and the other is roughly outlined by what Colin Beattie said, backed up by Clare Adamson, which is to look at the matter as per the Labour Party’s original suggestion. I hope that members agree that the matter could not be put back as far as was originally envisaged. I think that it was George Adam who originally said that it could be considered with the bill at stage 1. Is that correct?

Yes.

Those are the two positions. I would prefer that we did not vote on this, but if it is what members prefer, we can have a vote. It looks like four members support the position that was originally outlined by Liam McArthur. The other position is supported by the four Scottish National Party members.

All these matters can be discussed and questions can be asked, as per Colin Beattie’s suggestion about supporting the Labour Party proposal to take consider the episode during evidence on the colleges and regionalisation agenda. That would take place as part of our scrutiny of the bill, starting in January.

Are members content with that? I know that it is not the unanimous position, but it is the majority position in the committee at the moment.

Just move to a vote.

We do not have to have a vote. Will we have a vote?

Yes.

Is everyone clear about the two proposals? I describe them as the letter from the Opposition members and the original Labour Party proposal. I know that that is not exactly right but it is just for clarity, so that people know what we are talking about.

Who is in favour of the proposal that has been submitted by the four Opposition members in the form of the letter?

For

Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)

Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)

McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)

Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Who is in favour of the original Labour Party proposal—albeit that it would take place in the context of the post-16 education reform bill?

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)

Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)

Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)

McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)

Four members supported the call for an immediate inquiry and five members supported the proposal that the evidence be taken as part of the bill on post-16 education and training.

Members have no other points about the work programme, so I close the meeting.

Meeting closed at 12:08.