Official Report 235KB pdf
We move on to item 5, which is the final item on our agenda. Although we are considering our work programme from now until the Christmas recess, members will note the suggestion that, at our meeting of 23 November, we discuss our work programme from January to June 2005. Therefore, it would be helpful if between now and our meeting in November, members would feed in to the clerks and myself ideas for issues that our programme between January and June next year should address. Obviously, we want all members to feed into the process; the programme should feature not only the priorities of the convener and deputy convener.
I have one comment about the taking of bill evidence, which I made to the clerks on a previous occasion. The NUS is included in the programme as is the ad hoc group CHESS—the Coalition of Higher Education Students in Scotland. There is no democratic structure in that organisation, so it has always seemed odd to me that we should choose that organisation instead of other democratically organised organisations and student committees.
The problem is a perennial one. I feel as if I am suffering from déjà vu: when I was last a member of the committee, we took evidence on lifelong learning. At that time, we took the position—which I assume members would agree with now—that, as a committee, we did not want to get involved in the internal student politics between different student organisations.
That would accommodate my concerns.
That would be preferable. Unfortunately, not all universities are affiliated to the NUS—the University of Glasgow is not, for example.
I am not disputing that. I am simply suggesting that, if we want to get a view outwith the NUS viewpoint, it would be good to invite institutions that are directly accountable to their students.
In other words, we are saying that we should invite the NUS plus representatives from other institutions but not CHESS.
I agree. Richard Baker's suggestion was that we should invite an FE college and a higher education institution that are not in the NUS's membership.
To be fair, the vast majority of the FE colleges are affiliated to the NUS. I would not want us to be prescriptive about which institutions we invite. I agree that we want to get the point of view of the non-affiliates, but we also want to get cross-sectoral views. We should have a university outwith the NUS, if needs be, but I would not want to apply the same caveat to the FE colleges, as most of them are affiliated.
I want to clarify my remarks. When I talked about institutions, I meant the student representatives of the higher education and further education institutions and not the representatives of the institutions themselves.
We should not restrict ourselves to democratic organisations; if we did that, we would not have many witnesses.
I have one further comment on the draft work programme. I ask members to look at the suggested agenda items for our meeting of 23 November. Are we trying to bite off more than we can chew at that meeting? The agenda has three fairly big items: the business growth research presentation; an opportunity to take evidence from Jack Perry and Sandy Cumming; and the draft arts report. Can we manage all of those without staying in the building overnight?
That is a fair point; the agenda does look heavy. That said, we have allowed two discussions on the draft report.
Perhaps the convener, the deputy convener and the clerks could consider the issue.
Do the clerks intend the draft arts report to be signed off after the second discussion?
Yes, as that is the second meeting at which the committee would discuss the draft report. Although the extent of controversy on the issue would be a factor, by that stage the item might not take as long as would be the case on the first occasion.
That has not been my experience of other draft reports.
The alternative might be to have the business growth presentation as a one-off open meeting on another day that week or at another time of the day. It is important that we do as much as we can in public—and I remind members that we are still in public session now. We do not want to rush it, as we have a lot of questions to ask. If we took that presentation out and tried to have it on another day, perhaps for an hour or an hour and a half, would that be helpful?
I would rather have a considered reflection on the matter from you, the deputy convener and the clerks than a decision now.
Okay. That is a fair point. We can come up with a recommendation.
I have been liaising with Stephen Herbert in SPICe about it. An interim report is being compiled at the moment although, unfortunately, we have not received a huge number of written submissions from football clubs. Dundee United Football Club is a notable exception, as we received an excellent submission from it. The lack of written submissions has been of particular concern; therefore, we have been trying to meet representatives of the clubs instead, which has extended the process somewhat. Most of the meetings for the report should have taken place soon after we return from the recess. Some are being conducted during the first week of the recess.
I take it that Brian Adam is no longer involved in the report.
My understanding is that he cannot be, as he is no longer a member of the committee.
Would it be an idea to bring in Michael Matheson in Brian Adam's place, to help you to finish it off?
I am happy to take whatever input is offered, but we are pretty far down the road, having taken evidence and submissions.
What does the committee think?
The report is just about complete, is it not?
When are we going to get it?
After the recess.
Is that acceptable?
How long will we need for discussion of that report? Three hours?
No.
Forty-five minutes each way should do.
Is everybody happy with the work programme, with those amendments?
Okay. Thank you very much.
Meeting closed at 15:53.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation