Civic Participation Funding Bids
We move to item 4. Members have in front of them two private papers. We will first deal with the appointment of advisers for our inquiry into the purpose of education. The committee will be required to select four advisers to address that issue with us from the list of people that we have been given. Those people will then be approached. We will require approval from the Parliamentary Bureau to appoint them. The list that has been drawn up for us by the Scottish Parliament information centre contains the names of seven individuals.
Do we need to make a decision on the advisers today?
I would like us make a decision today. The wheels grind slowly and, given that we have to put in a bid to the bureau, the quicker that we can make a decision, the better. The bureau has instigated a round of funding bids for this financial period, for which the deadline is 5 October. At our last-but-one meeting, we decided that we would go ahead with the inquiry as our first piece of work following the summer recess. If we are going to consider individuals, we will have to do so in private. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Meeting continued in private.
Meeting continued in public.
The committee is required to submit to the conveners liaison group a bid for external research to enable us to conduct our purpose of education inquiry.
One of the issues we have discussed is the committee's requirement to engage as wide an audience as possible in the research. It has been suggested that we hold a couple of focus groups and commission MORI, or some other organisation, to undertake three or four omnibus questions on the basis of the paper that is drawn up for us. That would incur a cost of around £5,000. I suggest that we also have some contingency for mailing in our bid for civic participation funding, so that we can involve as many organisations as possible. If we agree to put in a bid for around £6,000 to the conveners liaison group, the clerks will be able to build up that bid for 5 October. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
We move on to the civic participation initiative on the children's commissioner youth participation event. Members will remember that one of the key elements in the children's commissioner inquiry was the involvement of children and young people. Members have in front of them a bid for financing the involvement of 100 young people in the consultation, which would incur costs of around £3,850 to £4,000. I suggest that we go ahead with that.
My only concern is the way in which we get hold of the young people. For the young person's health congress, education authorities were asked to nominate young people. If education authorities are asked to nominate people for this event, we might get the usual suspects. We must try to engage with the Executive education department and others to get a broad cross-section of young people involved, who would represent a broader spectrum of Scottish society than those who are selected by directors of education who, although meaning well, may just send the people whom they think would answer the questions in the way that they would want them to. That is not what we want.
I agree.
Why does the bid say that the event will be
"targeted at young people of at least secondary school age"?
Why cannot even younger people be involved? The commissioner would be not only for young people, but for children. Children who are below secondary school age are perfectly able to give us their views and suggestions about the work that the commissioner could do.
I see the value of holding such a meeting, but the clerk's note says:
"The theme would be to develop a ‘job description' and ‘person specification'".
That suggests that the issue has been decided. I would expect that, before those at the event decide the job description or the commissioner's role, whoever leads the initial discussion will give the arguments for and concerns against a children's commissioner. It is clear that a commissioner could have one of several roles. We would then elicit from those present what they thought of those possibilities.
Doing nothing must be one possibility, to give us the full range of responses. If we said that a children's commissioner is to be appointed and that we have to produce the job description, that would undermine the committee's position, because our report could be accused of being loaded.
I am concerned that the paper is a bit prescriptive. I always worry when an event has its outcome written before it starts. Like Irene McGugan, I am concerned about the ages of the young people. Whether we have a children's commissioner or a young person's commissioner is a matter for debate. Some of us think that the commissioner should be for children and young persons. We need to allow young people and children—however they are defined—time and space to consider that.
How are young people or children to be attracted to the event? I agree that we do not always want the kids who are hand-picked by directors of education, but we must ensure that Highland's active youth forum, for instance, has an opportunity to participate. Structures that involve young people might be a good target.
Although such an event is a good idea, my gut feeling is that it would be best if regional events that fed into a bigger event were held, to allow young people and children to discuss the issue and nominate folks to represent them at a final event. That snowball effect throughout the country would feed into a main event and might give us a better impression of what children and young people feel about a children's commissioner. That would help us to produce the job description and the remit of the commissioner. I know that that suggestion is a bit more involved, but we must be clear that participation means that people can participate. As wide a body as possible must be able to participate.
Another point has occurred to me. Much of the pressure in Wales came not so much from children in schools as from children in care. If we simply approached education departments, we would be likely to miss out on that important aspect. Whatever route we take, we must ensure that we involve children in care and obtain their opinion.
We should not forget that we have held one consultation exercise. We commissioned a video for that event, which took a geographical spread of children from around Scotland and involved children in different situations. Children in care, Travellers' children and others were included. We have made a start on that. We should not forget that we have such evidence, to which we can add.
I will pick up the points that have been made. Brian Monteith is right about the third paragraph on page 1 of the clerk's note. I do not think that we can be so prescriptive. We have not yet taken a view on whether there should be a children's commissioner. It emerged from the consultation on 25 June that there is a wide range of views among organisations and children and young people on whether there should be a commissioner and on what that individual's role and remit should be.
We should allow for a fairly broad, open discussion, but we need some ideas of the realistic options. We should not be setting up young people and children to expect something that we will not be able to deliver. If we do that, we will not be doing them a service, but exactly the opposite. Presenting them with a blank cheque would be very nice, but it would not be realistic with regard to what the Parliament will be willing or able to do.
Our adviser produced some beautiful information and work for us the other week. We should draw that up in a more child-friendly manner. We could use that before the event to try to gauge views and begin the debate among as wide a cross-section of Scottish children and young people as possible.
I take on board Cathy Peattie's point about regional events. I am in favour of them but, realistically, the timetable for holding them is getting more restricted with every day that passes. Our first meeting after the recess is on 23 October, and I remind members that we are keen to complete the work by December if we are realistic about introducing a bill in September 2002. I am not sure how the time scale for that would work, or whether we have the facility to achieve it if we have not arrived at a common perspective on whether there should be a children's commissioner. That is part of our problem. Most of the agencies that are involved with consultation with children and young people have taken a strong view on whether there should be a children's commissioner. We cannot allow our not having formed our perspective on the matter to shape the consultation with children and young people, because we want to gauge their views, rather than those of the adults who work with them. We need to do it properly.
There may be some benefit in having two or three regional meetings. My concern would still be about the time scale of that. If we hold two or three of them, people in some areas will complain that we did not go there. The easy way would be to have one meeting in the north, one in a central location and one in the south. That would be an option. However, how do we select the children and young people, how big do we make the meetings and how will their contributions feed into a central event? If they do not participate in the regional events, does that mean that they cannot participate in the central event?
I would be keen for us to put in a bid for funding by 5 October. If we do not do so, we will not get any money. Could we get a costing for holding three regional events and for that costing to be e-mailed to members tomorrow? Members could then take a view on it and come back to me by e-mail. We can then hold a discussion, perhaps in the chamber. The final, bigger event perhaps does not need to be as big as is being suggested if we also hold regional events. We could build up the picture over the next couple of days and approach members by e-mail. Is that agreeable?
Members indicated agreement.
The next civic participation initiative concerns Scottish Borders Council. That bid will take us up to an aggregated cost of £1,700. It would involve our meeting staff, pupils, teaching and ancillary unions and parents in and around schools in Kelso, Jedburgh and Hawick. A primary school, a secondary school and a community school would be involved. It is not mentioned in the clerk's note, but we also need to factor in a special needs unit, because of the particular issue surrounding special educational needs.
We have to be clear that we cannot offer the people of the Borders false expectations of what the Education, Culture and Sport Committee can do. Local authorities are responsible for their own decisions and it will not be helpful for us to build up our inquiry as a big way of suddenly changing everything. We will carry out an inquiry and we may make big recommendations, but we cannot force the local authority to take up any of them.
It is important for us to gain an insight into the community feeling as well as to find out what has happened and why. We need to address some of the problems that Scottish Borders Council is experiencing and to investigate what can be done to stop them happening again.
It is important for us to have a civic participation initiative. The idea is set out in the paper. I suggested to the clerks that we go down that route because I wanted to have an informal meeting rather than a big public meeting. I do not think that we would gain anything from holding a big public meeting—we would hear only from individuals with particular interests and gripes and we would not get to the bottom of the situation. This route will allow us to facilitate small individual discussions in a less formal setting, but gain information in a more constructive way.
The other proposal is to have a formal committee meeting in Galashiels on the afternoon of Monday 5 November. It would be on the Monday because there is difficulty getting accommodation with the appropriate systems to record the meeting for the purposes of the Official Report.
I regret that I will not be able to attend.
Are you away?
Yes. I greatly regret it, particularly as I am a South of Scotland MSP. However, there is nothing that I can do—I have a long-standing commitment to attend the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
I expect that my colleague, Christine Grahame, will request to attend some of the meetings.
Members of the Parliament are perfectly entitled to attend any formal committee meetings, wherever they are held.
I am sure that she will be made very welcome.
If members have no objections, I suggest that we take the bid forward.
Are those the dates?
Yes. The dates are set. I advise members to put them in their diaries.
I am not trying to be difficult, but I wonder whether, technically, the inquiry is into the reported shortfall in the education budget. However, if you are happy with that title, convener, it is okay.
We need to find a form of words that is not prescriptive, such as "into the current situation".
We could say, "reported overspend and subsequent cutbacks", "financial situation" or something like that.
"Financial situation" would be a neutral option. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.