Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 10 Jan 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 10, 2001

Official Report 143KB pdf

---

Work Programme

Item 6 on the agenda is the consideration of our forward work programme. Members have a paper that suggests a programme up to the Easter recess. It is quite a full programme, because we are taking on the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Bill, which will require the taking of evidence. We will also take oral evidence on the Hampden inquiry. We have to tie that up, because it has been going on for a considerable time. It would be good to take that oral evidence, produce a report and conclude that inquiry, rather than letting it drift on and on.

The schools infrastructure inquiry will be fairly detailed. It will be valuable to the committee and it would be useful to get it done and dusted by Easter, if possible. We should therefore dedicate a substantial amount of time to it.

During previous inquiries, I have found it useful to concentrate on just one inquiry, rather than having two or three running at the same time. Obviously, we have to deal with the bill; I suggest that we do that first, to get it out of the way. We could then do the Hampden inquiry and get it out of the way, concluding with a report. We would then move to the school infrastructure inquiry, which would run right through and be concluded by Easter.

That would not give us scope to take on much else. However, it would help us to focus our work and to produce worthwhile reports. We can consider what we want to look into after Easter and perhaps give the clerks some guidance. We are a member of staff down at the moment, because David McLaren has moved on to work for Sir David Steel. We should therefore give the clerks as much help as we can in preparing the forward work programme for after Easter.

The film report has been long anticipated. It is brief and to the point and will be with the clerks if not tomorrow, on Friday, and out in time for the papers next week. It recommends two areas for further inquiry that might fit into our programme later in the parliamentary year. One is purely educational and the other is more about infrastructure. That is a taster, a teaser—

Do not spoil the surprise.

A trailer.

A trailer—the report, coming to a committee near you.

I think that the convener is right about ordering inquiries. It is difficult to run two major inquiries at the same time. The urgency of the Hampden inquiry has passed so that is, essentially, the completion of a piece of unfinished work. That should be the shorter of the two inquiries—I think that we have already agreed to curtail it. The really important inquiry before Easter is the schools infrastructure inquiry. The files containing evidence that has been submitted to us are very impressive. It might be that the clerks should write to all those who gave evidence asking whether they want to add anything, because that evidence came in before the summer. We should then concentrate on it.

In the period between Easter and the summer, a general election might disrupt our timetable. We have agreed to do something to mark the tenth year of the Gaelic television fund. That offers a rare opportunity to quantify a cultural spend in terms of employment and impact. I suggest that we need to firm up the proposal and prepare for the anniversary. We should have two meetings in June. At one we will take evidence in Edinburgh and the other—in Stornoway—will, I anticipate, include taking evidence as well as a visit to the Gaelic television studios, with a view to producing a report in September. I would be happy to work with the clerks in asking for evidence—I know most of the key players—and on a preparatory paper to set the scene, so that we are ready to go with that in June.

I suggest two further things that are not included in the work programme because I was not here for the discussion of it. At the first meeting after the Easter recess we should, if possible, have the Scottish Qualifications Authority back for a public session in which we will ask how it is getting on with its forward programme, whether it is meeting its objectives and whether there are issues about the budget, training and delivery. The committee has a responsibility to ensure that the SQA is on track to deliver this year what it did not deliver last year. That public scrutiny would be useful for us and for the SQA.

We talked about the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Bill. There is a gap in consideration of issues for children in care. How is the education of children who are fostered, in residential care and adopted attended to? In the work programme after Easter we should at least have a preliminary investigation to gather statistics and to decide whether we want to examine the issues in more depth after the summer recess.

Adoption policy in Scotland is not included and we should look at that. There have been announcements elsewhere in the UK. I have had two very different experiences of the adoption process with the same social work department in the past five years and I think that that should be looked at. There are differences in how the system impacts on employment and there are a number of inconsistencies that I have experienced and inconsistencies in terms of access and information. How one is treated depends on one's social class. I would be keen to take an opportunity to address that after the summer, because that has been neglected in Scotland.

I endorse the convener's point about the academic experience and usual failure of young people who are looked after or in care. Social workers and carers have long held it that such children do not achieve well in school and that there must be reasons for that that have not been addressed, although statistics are available which show that to be the case. I support an investigation into that with, I hope, a remedy as its outcome.

I managed to get to the previous meeting only in time for the mince pies—

Who ate all the pies?

We were out making snowmen.

—so I did not contribute to the list of priorities for after the Easter recess. New members of the committee will also want to add suggestions, as Frank McAveety has, and I support his suggestion to examine adoption.

Rural schools are included under "Other matters for consideration" on the list. School closure is second only to health as a topic for members' business debates. The committee has looked at rural schools in an inconclusive way and we should revisit the issue. If we do not do that, the issue will continue to be raised through members' business debates, without any clear guidance on how we can resolve the problem of Parliament being the first point of complaint when a local authority seeks to close a school. It is right that parents have the opportunity to bring school closures to the attention of Parliament, but we are all floundering for want of clear guidance on where Parliament stands on giving advice. Rural schools needs to be moved up a category and examined in more detail.

Similarly, if we do not do something about museums and industrial museums, that matter will come back. There is likely to be a further round of museums saying that they need funding and that they face closure. If we do not give that some priority, we will miss out an important aspect of Scottish culture.

"Minority languages, including Scots" is also under "Other matters". I would like that to be broadened and I suggest that the committee examine at some point language teaching in schools, including Gaelic, Scots and foreign languages. There is a lot of evidence coming out that foreign languages are not well taught in Scotland, as well as evidence that we are losing our own culture. The committee should look at that on a cross-party basis, to add further pressure to bring about change.

Brian Monteith talked about rural schools. Cathy Peattie's report was a very positive contribution to thinking on that and it was positive in outlining local authority good practice.

It looked at only one instance of closure.

Indeed, but since your comments were negative, I wanted to highlight Cathy Peattie's positive contribution.

Thank you, Ian, but there is unfinished business there. We agreed that there were issues in Argyll and Bute and that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities should look at the issues more generally and at a code of practice for school closures. To my knowledge, COSLA has not yet begun work on that. I remind members that I met COSLA before I recommended that it should do that work. I think it would be helpful for the committee to write to COSLA asking for an update. We will start to get more petitions from schools that are facing closure—MSPs have been approached.

It is a disappointment that there are no set procedures that people can consult. COSLA must consider that. Parents need such information and local authorities need to follow a set programme. That is not happening yet. COSLA must consider the procedures that surround proposed school closures.

Abercorn is a current example where, yet again, parents are claiming that the consultation procedures were flawed and biased against them. The reason that the closure in Argyll did not proceed was because of the concern that was expressed about the consultation procedures.

Many people have spoken to COSLA on the issue and have received warm words and understanding. However, COSLA must grasp the nettle and draw up a set of guidelines for local authorities that will ensure fair, impartial consultation, which engages at least the grudging support of parents, even where their school is listed for possible closure.

I support Cathy Peattie's comments. We should write to COSLA, ask it what is happening and encourage it to make proposals. The committee could also play a part in helping to develop those proposals.

There are several issues that could be dealt with in reports by committee members. Next week, we could have a short discussion on the remits of those reports. One issue is museums and industrial museums, in which both Brian Monteith and Mike Russell have an interest. Irene McGugan has raised the issue of language—perhaps she could take on that report. If we have a discussion about remits next week, members can go away and come back to the committee on some of those issues by the summer. Frank McAveety will report on popular music and Cathy Peattie will report on traditional music.

There is an on-going issue in relation to my report on sport in schools. I will be happy to follow that up and pick up on sport strategy issues. Perhaps we could also consider some of the early-years education issues. Ian Jenkins has quite a lot of experience in that area. That would give us all a report to work on, in addition to the general committee work.

The conveners group has recommended that committees meet fortnightly, but we are due to meet weekly until the Easter recess. To be realistic, we should say that we will, at least until the summer, meet weekly. However, we should leave some gaps in the timetable following the Easter recess—perhaps one gap a month—to pick up on issues as they arise.

At some point we will have to consider the McCrone report. I can give the committee a brief update on that. I understand that the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs will make a statement to Parliament this afternoon on the current situation. I spoke to him this morning and he has agreed to keep the committee informed through briefings to me. Once agreement has been reached between the Executive, the employers and the unions, we will have to discuss the issue. It is not for the committee to determine the agreement, but I am sure that we will want to discuss it and its future impact on education.

We should leave some gaps in our timetable. Subjects such as the SQA, Scottish Opera and Hampden have come up in the past, which has meant that we have had to ditch other work to deal with them.

You are right about the McCrone report, convener. However, there is the probability that the Scottish Executive education department—perhaps I should call it the Scottish Government education department—will produce its review of higher still. It is essential that we consider that review.

I want to return to Gaelic. As it will take some time for organisations to give information, would it be possible for me to work with the clerks to pull that information together? We must also try to set a date for the visit to Stornoway, because that cannot be done at the drop of a hat. The clerks would have to request permission from the Parliamentary Bureau for the committee to travel outside Parliament—there should be no great difficulty in that.

I suggest that we spend 20 minutes or so next week discussing the remits of the reports. That will allow us to put together a bid for funding if members need to go on visits and so on. I suggest that Brian Monteith takes on the issue of museums and industrial museums and that Mike Russell deals with Gaelic television. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The final report of the special educational needs inquiry will be on the agenda for next week. I know that Julie Allan asked for comments from members, but that she has not received very many. If members have any comments on the report, they should give them to the clerks by 5 o'clock tomorrow afternoon. It has been quite a long time since the report was drafted. If members do not have a copy of the report, the clerks will give them one today. If there are no comments, we will assume that the substance of the report is agreed as it stands.

Members should note that the papers indicate that the all-powerful conveners group has changed our meetings to Tuesday afternoons.

I did not see that.

It is on the agenda. The conveners group has agreed that our first meeting on a Tuesday afternoon will be on 23 January. I was not consulted about the change and I take it that the committee was not consulted either. I know that Mike Russell is not on the bureau any more and that that was the major problem with Tuesday afternoons. If any one else has a problem with Tuesday afternoons they should flag that up over the next few days and I will do my best to battle with the conveners group. I suggest that we timetable our meetings for 2.30 pm to 4.30 pm and try to stick to that. Martin Verity will send round a note on that.

The conveners group has given us special permission to meet on Wednesday 14 February in the morning. The committee had agreed that Sam Galbraith would come to give evidence on the Hampden inquiry and he had already timetabled that date in his diary.

Will we meet on the Tuesday afternoon as well?

No—we will meet on Valentine's day, so I will bring my cards.

I do not have a sack big enough to put all mine in.

Aye, right. If you and Mike Russell are going to give me trouble for the next six months—

Who? Us? The two living Scottish debaters of the year will be fun to deal with.

Was there a difficulty with Wednesday morning meetings?

Everyone wants to meet on a Wednesday morning because no members want to come to Edinburgh on Tuesday afternoons. The committees that met previously on Tuesday afternoons have swapped with those that had a Wednesday morning slot. That is part of the on-going process of sharing resources in the current accommodation until we move down the road to our new purpose-built building—at considerable cost to the taxpayer.

Are you saying that the problem was availability of rooms, rather than people's diaries?

Yes. As committees tend to meet every week there has been a problem about the availability of rooms. Our decision to meet weekly after Easter might cause further difficulties. However, if we say it now, the bureau will just have to timetable it in.

Meeting closed at 11:09.