Children's Commissioner
Item 4 on the agenda is on the issue of a children's commissioner. As I indicated last week, I have received correspondence on this from Save the Children. The committee has had much correspondence with Sam Galbraith, in his former capacity as Minister for Children and Education. The issue has been on the table for some time. The suggestion is for the committee to conduct an inquiry into the question of a children's commissioner, covering whether to have one and what the roles and responsibilities of the commissioner should be.
Given the committee's timetable, it would be virtually impossible for oral evidence to be taken prior to the Easter recess. However, I suggest that we now seek written evidence from organisations to aid us in our discussions and in our oral evidence taking. I have written to the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly, asking for the input of their relevant committee conveners and ministers. Wales and Northern Ireland are pressing ahead with similar proposals. It would be useful for us to get information from them and, if appropriate, arrange meetings at a future date.
That is the current position, and I thought it useful to have the issue on the agenda. I welcome members' comments.
I welcome what you have said, convener, as well as this opportunity to put the question of a children's commissioner on to our agenda. I accept your proposals for getting written submissions prior to Easter. It is important that we take oral evidence and that we have an opportunity to hear what young people think. Organisations such as Save the Children might be able to help facilitate a session involving young people.
I assume that we will get an opportunity to list the agencies from which we may want to gather evidence. I am keen to ensure that they include voluntary organisations and other organisations with an interest in children. It might also be worth examining the arrangements in other countries, to see whether they have children's commissioners with real bite, as it were. We should not set up a position that just pays lip service to the concept of having a commissioner or that means little. I welcome the opportunity to examine the issue, and hope that we can make progress and take evidence from all sorts of people with an interest in the matter, particularly from young people.
It is very important not just to have the matter on the agenda, but to prioritise it. I commend the convener for the steps that she has taken to get this moving. Scotland should not be left behind, as it is in danger of being. We should note that calls for a Scottish commissioner for children predate the establishment of this Parliament. Some people have been campaigning for as long as five years. Now that we have the Parliament, it is important that we have a children's commissioner, as long as the commissioner has the correct remit and balance of responsibilities to make a difference for children and young people in Scotland.
There are illustrations of why we need somebody to safeguard the interests of vulnerable children in today's press, which covers the experiences of youngsters in Fife children's homes. Two years ago, when the report on the inquiry into Edinburgh children's homes came out, one of the clear recommendations was for a children's commissioner to be in post to help promote good practice and to ensure that children have some redress when their rights and needs are so flagrantly disregarded.
I view the appointment of a children's commissioner as a priority and urge the committee to move forward on it as quickly as possible.
I suggest that we post an invitation to organisations to submit evidence on the issues as outlined by the Scottish Parliament information centre. Clearly, we will wish to contact some organisations directly, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Who Cares? Scotland and the adoption and fostering services, which were represented last week. All those organisations, as well as Save the Children, Children in Scotland and Children 1st, need to be contacted directly. We should also put out a general invite for people to submit information and evidence to us.
To return to one of Irene McGugan's points, it may be useful for us to contact Cathy Jamieson MSP. She was involved in the Edinburgh children's homes investigation, and it may be helpful to discuss some of the issues with her, perhaps informally at first.
One of the things that we are being encouraged to do in the paper on the effectiveness of committees, which is our next agenda item, is to have events of some sort. Instead of holding formal hearings on the issue of a children's commissioner, we could host an event—perhaps in the chamber—that would enable organisations to come together, give their views and debate the matters. Such a slightly different approach might allow ideas to spark off each other.
Will that include children?
Yes.
That is a very helpful suggestion, Mike.
I should also say that the Parliament's education service is putting together a full-day event on another issue for children across Scotland which will take place in March. Perhaps the committee could find an issue for children to discuss on any future debating day. I have been invited to attend this full-day event on behalf of the committee, and think that it will be very good. We can press ahead with this matter, and I will keep the committee up to date with any information that we receive from Northern Ireland and Wales.
At this point, I want to raise the issue of the special educational needs inquiry. I am somewhat perturbed by the leaking of the inquiry report last Friday. The report has been some considerable time in the making and has involved a lot of work from committee members; it was neither helpful nor necessary for it to be trailed in the way that it was before its publication. As convener, I ask members for permission to write to the Standards Committee seeking an investigation into the source of the leak. As Mike Russell has also raised the issue, perhaps he will want to comment on it.
This matter raises a number of problems. First of all, it is just not on to leak reports. Mr McAveety and I have often been accused of all kinds of calumnies and crimes, but leaking a committee report is utterly pointless and shows contempt for one's colleagues. We have had many opportunities in the past to leak a report, or at least to say something about it, and most of us have been scrupulous about not doing so.
Not only were the report's general conclusions leaked, but The Times Educational Supplement contained specific quotations. However, the TES report is inaccurate; this committee is not "Labour-controlled"—quite the reverse. There is no Labour majority on the committee; it is an all-party committee which reached most of its conclusions unanimously. Despite the fact that one member tried to move some amendments, he did not push them to a minority report. The situation is quite unacceptable.
I should mention another unacceptable development. We are all politicians and can do what we like, but it was unnecessary for the individual member—who is not here—to hold a briefing on the issue this afternoon before the committee met. Because we are sitting here doing our job, we cannot answer some of the questions that are being asked. For the record, we should make it absolutely clear that the special educational needs report was mostly unanimous and in no sense jeopardises the position of special schools. Although its keenness for mainstream education should be commended, it does not pose a threat to the very good job that special schools do.
Two weeks ago in this committee room, Karen Gillon and I jointly hosted a visit from Stanmore House School. Furthermore, we have both visited the place, which does a tremendous job. I would hate to see its work damaged in any way, and the implication that this committee, of which Karen is convener and I am a member, will do so is itself very damaging to both of us. We must make that point absolutely clear.
I have been asked to take part in a discussion this evening on the future of special needs schools with Brian Monteith MSP. Unfortunately, I am not able to accept that offer, but I have spoken to my colleague Cathy Peattie, who is the deputy convener, about taking my place. If she accepts that invitation, she is doing so as the deputy convener of the committee, not as a Labour member, and she will put forward the committee's views on our published report.
The report was, to all intents and purposes, unanimous and it is very unfortunate that it has been sidelined in such a manner. Some of the committee's recommendations, particularly our request for a review of the reporting process, form a very important step forward for young people with special educational needs. With the committee's agreement, I ask Cathy Peattie to accept that invitation on behalf of the committee, not on behalf of any one political party.
If Cathy Peattie speaks to the report, as she will be doing, she is essentially speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrat, SNP and Labour members. Indeed, she will be speaking for the whole committee, as there was no dissent over most of the report. I hope that she will very strongly make the point that there is no threat to special schools, rather that there is an encouragement of mainstream education and that to present the report in any other way is to pervert it.
Returning to the convener's point about the Standards Committee, I think that this is a textbook case of the damage that leaking can do. The report, which was meant to be placed in the public domain as a positive contribution by the committee, has now been damaged by what has happened. I hope that the Standards Committee will take note of that point.
Do members agree to refer the leak to the Standards Committee for an inquiry by its commissioner?
Members indicated agreement.
I am on the Standards Committee, so that will be fun.
I will write formally to the convener of the Standards Committee to ask that it take up the matter, and Cathy Peattie will accept tonight's engagement on "Newsnight Scotland" on the committee's behalf. Although it is unprecedented to raise items that are not on the agenda, I felt that it was in the interests of the committee and the public to discuss the item in public session.