Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, 10 Nov 1999
Meeting date: Wednesday, November 10, 1999
Official Report
281KB pdf
Work Programme
I asked the clerks to prepare a draft of the work programme to give members a view of the likely duration of the inquiry, its component parts and how it would fit together. Last week, several of us discussed that informally.
I want to make several points about the briefing note. First, it includes a breakdown of each of the phases of our work. I have just noticed that there is a mistake in the numbering of the case studies. We will carry out four case studies—two on business support and two on lifelong learning—to examine issues of best practice. Input from members about where that best practice may be sought is very welcome. We have invited written evidence and it is coming in on a fairly sustained basis.
On page 4 of the briefing note there is a reference to the business in the chamber proposal. At our meeting a fortnight ago, I sensed concern that we were not meeting the people who were the users of the services. At the conveners group meeting, we discussed the proposals of the consultative steering group, which provide for resources to be available to the committee and the Parliament to engage a wider audience in its deliberative work. I am asking for members' approval to arrange a half-day exercise to take place in the chamber, involving 129 users of business support services. Those people would be invited to discuss the conclusions of the phase 1 inquiry. I invite every member of the committee, based on their local and constituency experience, to nominate five individuals to take part in that debate. We would also provide the opportunity for organisations of which we are not aware to gain access to the debate through a website or by contacting the clerks. The purpose is to go beyond the core of the parliamentary membership and to engage in dialogue with a wider community.
The mapping exercise of the delivery of local economic development business support and vocational training services is under way. The Scottish Parliament information centre is doing a great deal of work, but that needs to be supplemented by external resources and we are seeking approval to do that. I have discussed with SPICe the proposal to link up with other providers, such as Scottish Enterprise, to help gather information. There is a lot of sense in trying to draw together that work. I have made it clear to SPICe that we want to maintain editorial control over the content of that material.
We have also developed proposals to seek external opinion and direction for our inquiry. That is set out in the briefing note. I will go through the recommendations on page 6 so that we are very clear.
The first recommendation asks for the committee's approval of the general methodology and schedule that is outlined in the note. The second recommendation is that the committee formally agree that the parts of the meetings that are used to formulate the interim conclusions or the draft final report should be held in private. I have to seek the formal agreement of the committee to do that. Once we have reached formal conclusions, they will be publicised. That is the third recommendation.
The fourth recommendation is that, during phase 2 of the inquiry, we publish the written evidence that we have received. However, that evidence will be made available to members as soon as possible after the deadline of 18 November. We are asking the committee to support the business in the chamber proposal, which must seek authorisation and resources from other bodies: the Parliamentary Bureau and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. We are seeking agreement for the research support and expert advice that is outlined in the paper. Finally, we seek the committee's approval of external bodies to undertake the research and expert advice.
Are there any comments on that?
I think we are happy to endorse that programme. The only minor amendment that I suggest would be to the business in the chamber proposal, which refers to five individual businessmen or women. Those people need not be individual businessmen or women. They might be people who have experienced the delivery of local economic development services as consumers; they might be people who have made application and failed to secure the necessary development services. I would add that proviso.
I am quite happy to go along with what is listed. I suggest that the Scottish Trades Union Congress, as a general organisation for people who are involved in workplace training, should be involved, perhaps in the hearing for lifelong learning consumers on 24 November. In addition, the STUC should possibly be involved in our consideration of case studies on 26 January. The STUC may be of assistance with problems of best practice.
Are there any other comments?
I think that Allan and Duncan's points are accepted and we can proceed on that basis. The clerks will take steps to implement that.