Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 07 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 7, 2000

Official Report 152KB pdf

---

Committee Business

We return to item 1, which is an update on committee business that will not be further discussed this afternoon.

The committee previously agreed to take evidence from young people on the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill. We asked Gillian Baxendine to consider the practicalities; she has several suggestions.

We approached Children in Scotland, which has consulted its children's policy network, to find people who were either already collecting—or were willing to collect—views from young people on the issue. Children in Scotland has told us that on 20 March, ChildLine is holding a major conference involving 50 schools on topics including sex and bullying. ChildLine is happy to give us feedback on that and has invited the convener to attend the session.

The Aberdeen students forum has also indicated an interest in feeding back views. There are a few other organisations in the policy network that would like to come back to us with views from young people. That seemed to be quite a good way of getting a wide range of views.

That would be useful, because those young people are already in situations where they are able to express their views. It might have been difficult to organise a session similar to the one that we already have had with young people. It is often more useful to allow people to give their views in their own context. Are there any other suggestions?

That is a good way forward.

Are members happy with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

I will attend the ChildLine conference and report back to the committee. I am sure that ChildLine will also provide a written report.

The other matter on which we should have an update is rural schools. Would Jamie Stone like to comment on that?

The good news is that yesterday, I visited Dumfries and Galloway. I can assure members that it was a most useful visit and I must thank Dumfries and Galloway Council, which was very helpful. There are some interesting ideas coming forward.

I am due to visit three councils—possibly more, if time permits. We are teed up to visit Highland Council on 22 March. We were going to visit Moray Council today, but there is a problem. It is rather unfortunate, but Moray has said that it is not very happy about our visit. I know that Gillian Baxendine, her team and my research assistant all explained that I was not wearing my party political hat, but was visiting as a representative of the committee and of the Parliament. The council was still unhappy about the situation.

I am in the hands of other members. I am in a slight quandary about what to do next. We know that the committee received a petition relating to Moray, but whether that has something to do with the council's attitude is a moot point. I would appreciate the advice of the clerks, the convener and committee members. Apart from that, the inquiry is on track.

I understand why Moray Council is rather sensitive about the matter, because of the situation surrounding Boharm primary school. I assume that the inquiry has been explained clearly to the council. Perhaps we could emphasise the fact that the inquiry was not prompted by that particular case, but was decided on before the Boharm issue came to light. Furthermore, the committee is visiting not to criticise local authorities, but to see whether the existing procedures are adequate to protect rural schools. We must make it clear that our purpose is not to produce a damning report on any local authority or on local authorities in general.

Having received the petition, we were keen to ensure that Jamie Stone was able to consider the circumstances in Moray—not to be judgmental, but to take account of the situations that have arisen. It would be useful if Jamie was still able to visit Moray Council. To that end, I have made some inquiries and am awaiting a reply. If Jamie is agreeable, we shall leave that on the table for the moment and see what progress we can make. We should explain the situation without making people feel threatened in any way; we should allow people to give us their views and opinions so that we can learn from them.

I agree with your sentiments, and I hope that what you suggest will work. However, David McLaren sent a letter to Moray Council more than a week ago, suggesting a friendly fact-finding mission. The answer was an absolutely firm refusal.

We shall leave it on the table at this stage and I shall report back to the committee if there are any difficulties. We have a meeting tomorrow, so I shall try to deal with it before then.

I hope that we can make some progress. It is important that we go to Moray. However, if the council is not prepared to speak to Jamie Stone at an official level, other avenues could be explored, such as talking to individual councillors on the education committee. We do not want to undermine what the council is doing, but it is important to get a picture of what the council is dealing with, and we should be supportive as much as anything else.

I hope that we shall get a more positive response. We are meeting tomorrow and I shall update members then, but I do not want to delay things too much.

Are there any other items that are not on the agenda, which members would like to bring up at this stage?

Have we received any information back from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body about who the adviser to the special educational needs inquiry will be?

Yes, we have, but I cannot remember her name.

It is Dr Julie Allan of the University of Stirling.

That is right. We have moved the meeting on 29 March to Tuesday 28 March to accommodate Julie. Members will be able to meet her then if they have not done so already.

I wanted to mention our discussion with Grampian Television and Scottish Media Group last week. There were a number of questions that the representatives were reluctant to answer, and they referred us to the Independent Television Commission. Today's newspapers indicate that the ITC is pursuing further inquiries with Scottish Media Group. I suggest that we continue that item until the ITC has come to its conclusions, before deciding what further evidence we want to hear.

I sense that, partly because we did not have a lot of time, committee members felt that we did not get to the bottom of the issues that we wanted to address last week. It would be sensible to await the outcome of the ITC report; witnesses could not then respond to our questions by telling us to wait for the report to be published. We could get some more detailed answers from Grampian Television. If the committee is agreeable, we shall keep that on the go.

I hate to remind members of this, but I do not know where we would be able to fit that into our timetable. However, we shall try to deal with it as soon as we can.

Our timetable for future weeks and months has now been circulated to all members, and shows the time scale for stage 2 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill. Are there any comments on that? We have tried to include two meetings a week at times, but the timetable will depend on how swiftly we progress once we have begun to review the bill. I know that it will mean a lot of juggling, but that is the nature of the thing. If members have any specific difficulties, the earlier they let us know about them, the easier it will be to accommodate them.

While the Parliament is in Glasgow, will the committees still be meeting in Edinburgh?

Discussions are still going on about that.

It would be useful if members were informed about that as soon as possible, as they will have to make arrangements for other meetings.

I suggested to Gillian that the morning of 28 March would suit me better than the afternoon. I do not know whether it is possible to accommodate that.

Unfortunately, there was no room available in the morning.

I support the idea of having some committee meetings in Glasgow. The budget for regional committee meetings is constrained but, if we are in Glasgow for meetings of the Parliament, we should use the opportunity to hold committee meetings there. I live in Edinburgh, but I would be happy to make the effort to travel to Glasgow—and even try to be on time.

I shall resist the temptation to comment on that. I take your point.

Now that we have the timetable for when we are meeting for stage 2, when will we draw up our timetable for taking evidence?

Members should tell Gillian now who they think we should hear evidence from, and we will consider the matter during the next week or so. However, the situation is fluid and things might change.

Are we constrained at stage 2 to taking evidence only on points that are the subject of amendments?

The committee can take evidence on anything that it wants to within its remit.

Is that helpful?

Could we take evidence on a section of the bill, even if nobody has lodged an amendment to it?

Yes.