Official Report 183KB pdf
We will move on to the substantial issue of the way that the committee's future work programme could be shaped. There are two items that we have discussed previously. We should perhaps deal with them first.
The closing date for the ballot, which we were told at the previous meeting was 15 September, has been extended to 17 September because of postal difficulties.
That means that it might be well into the following week when the results are announced. However—and this relates to the point of order that I raised at the start of the meeting—that is not the same as taking evidence from all the parties to the SJNC about the current negotiations. There is a separate point to be made about the future of the negotiating machinery. I would like the minister to appear before us again as soon as possible—perhaps at our next meeting—to mop up the part of the education bill that we were not able to address with him last week.
How do other members of the committee feel about that? The issue of changes to the negotiating machinery was raised the day after we last met, and it has been intimated that they may become part of the bill. We have not had an opportunity to discuss that with the minister. Are members of the committee happy for us to invite him back to our next meeting to talk about it?
It is important that we ask him about the ideas that he has for the SJNC. However, I would also like to mention that there is provision in the SJNC's statutes for going to arbitration. Without prejudging the outcome of the ballot, it would be pertinent to ask the minister about his attitude to arbitration as a possible way of resolving this dispute.
Anything that may be included in the bill is legitimate for this committee to consider, particularly given that we have already started to examine the process. We will do that.
Am I right, convener, in believing that we will know the result of the ballot by the time of the meeting to which you referred?
It has been intimated that the result will not be through until 17 September.
But the result will not be announced on 17 September.
No, we are being told that the result will not be available until 21 or 22 September. That will cause us problems, because our meeting is on 22 September.
We might know the result of the ballot, but there is an issue that stands alone and is not relevant solely to the current negotiations. I do not want to flog the point, but we should press ahead with that and discuss the state of the negotiations at our next meeting.
There are two issues. First, we should discuss the future of the negotiating mechanism, which the minister referred to in the chamber last Thursday in answer to a question, and the possibility that it might be included in the bill. Secondly, following the ballot we should invite along all the parties involved in the negotiations, because we want to hear how each of them views the situation. That is what we had already decided.
However, the minister can still appear next week?
Yes.
The letter raises two separate issues. The first relates to Hampden itself. On the basis of this letter, the future of Hampden is still unresolved and open to speculation. The minister says:
This letter is interesting more for what it does not say than for what it does. All it does is provoke further questions. I will run through some of them to give you a flavour of what we might have to do, such as writing another letter or meeting people.
Brian asked who is monitoring the project and whether there has been a misuse of public funds. Those are fair and pertinent questions, but I am not sure that the Executive is the body to answer them. A lot of bodies are responsible for the—
That is why I asked, back on 3 August, that the committee meet to bring all those bodies together, rather than just the minister.
Two different points are at issue. Fiona is absolutely right that there is a case to be answered, but do we want to make the matter our No 1 priority and do we want to speak only to Sam Galbraith? A lot of other bodies are involved.
That is what I have been saying; many co-funders—I think that is what they call themselves—are involved. The matter should be a priority; we are talking about the national stadium.
Can we come to that later? First, I want to answer some points that have been raised so far. I am not here to answer for the Executive's letter, but given that the letter is here in black and white, we must assume that these are the Executive's answers and that they are true.
Rather than ask Sam Galbraith along, we should consider asking Rhona Brankin. Financial support has been received not only from the Scottish Executive but from sportscotland and other bodies, so it may be more appropriate for Rhona Brankin to answer our questions and assure us that the Executive is on top of the matter and that our fears are groundless.
One of the roles of the committees is to monitor what the Executive is doing. Ultimate responsibility for monitoring Hampden rests with the Scottish Executive, and responsibility for monitoring the Executive rests with the committees. As this committee is responsible for sport, we should call the relevant minister before us to answer all the unanswered questions. To say that we cannot do that because there may be a leak is rather a slur on fellow committee members. I hope that we all take the matter seriously; it is a major financial problem that affects everybody in Scotland. If we cannot get access to the answers, nobody can.
I must stress that I was not suggesting that leaks would come from the committee.
The Executive has a limited role in the Hampden affair. We have put questions to Sam Galbraith and he has given a detailed response. As he says in the second-last paragraph:
I agree with Kenneth. We should wait until the rescue package is fixed. Are people worried about the future of Hampden or are they trying to stir things? I would like to give the minister and his team a chance. His letter says:
I have to disagree with Ian on that point.
I thought she might.
May I suggest a way forward? I was going to ask whether we should invite Rhona Brankin to the meeting to discuss the national cultural strategy. If we do that, perhaps we should add to the agenda some questions about the up-to-date position on Hampden.
You said that, depending on the minister's answer, we may have to find other ways of getting the information. Should not we be doing that now? The sports committee of the Scottish Parliament ought to be asking the people involved to come and tell us what they propose, and there may be things that we can suggest to them.
This is a sensitive matter. We had a similar discussion about the teachers' pay negotiations. If people are involved in fairly sensitive negotiations, should we put them on the spot and make them give hard and fast answers, or should we give them flexibility to come to a resolution?
Do not we have a role to play?
Fiona rightly asks whether we have a role to play. I would put it more strongly: we have an obligation to get involved. It is not a question of putting organisations on the spot; it is a question of this committee keeping itself abreast of the situation and ensuring that we are in possession of all the relevant information at any particular time.
I want to bring this discussion to a close, because we are in danger of going around the houses 10 times. I will call Ken and Brian, and then we will try to come to an agreement.
In principle, I agree with keeping up to date with developments, but it is not our job to run the national stadium.
Nobody is suggesting that.
The trouble is that our time is limited. To devote hours of committee time to replace, in effect, whatever body is running the national stadium at the moment, is not—
With respect, I think that you misunderstand what is being said.
I know all about commercial sensitivity; I have had a business that went bust. I know what it is like and what people are experiencing. I know the fears of the punters about whether they will have a stadium. What are this Parliament and its committees for? Is it to tidy up after something has gone wrong and so do what could have been done by Government-appointed committees anyway? Or is it to have a role in doing something?
How do members feel about inviting Rhona Brankin to a future meeting and including in the agenda questions on the up-to-date position of Hampden and on our ability to ask questions?
That would be fine. As you and Kenneth have said, there is a time problem, but there is a time problem for Hampden as well.
We are all keen that this should be resolved. We would be more than happy to lend any assistance that we can. Do we agree to invite the minister and, in the meantime, to ask the Scottish Executive to keep us informed of any substantial movement, as promised in the letter?
Rhona has asked to attend a meeting of this committee to discuss the cultural strategy, which I think we would like to hear some views on. The consultation process on the strategy is open; it is due to finish at the end of October. As with the education bill, it would be useful for us to have a discussion at this stage. Do we agree to that invitation being extended?
Yes, and it is important that it happens sooner rather than later, given the time scale that is involved. While I appreciate the importance of the previous topic, I would hate it to overshadow our agenda to the extent that we had only 10 minutes to discuss the cultural strategy and were unable to pinpoint some of the important issues about the method of consultation. I want to ensure that Rhona comes sooner rather than later, and that there is time to discuss the cultural strategy.
That is agreed. We will arrange for the meeting to take place as soon as possible.
Perhaps we should have a break for press releases, and then we could get on with our work. It seems to be standard procedure in this committee for members to leave during meetings. It happened at the previous meeting, when a press release was scheduled to occur 20 minutes into the committee meeting. That is not the best way of conducting business.
It would be more productive if committee members were here for the whole of the meeting.
Shall we adjourn?
No.
We will continue, as we have a lot to get through and members do not have time to hang about.
If Greg Dyke is having difficulties co-ordinating his diary with our schedule of meetings, perhaps we could accommodate him outside our normal schedule. It is important to meet him as soon as we can.
I think that we will take that suggestion on board. Obviously, as Mr Dyke is finishing one job and starting another, there will be problems with diary dates. We will talk about having extra committee meetings later, because the issue seems to throw people.
Before we go further, can I add an item to the list?
Do you have to?
I was too late on Monday to phone Gillian. Can I add Gaelic education to the list?
We have a note of that already.
Another item that is part of our culture brief is the Scottish music business. I am quite happy to include that, because it is not an issue by itself.
Gillian will make a note of that.
I agree with that. I imagine that this part of our debate will be structured with difficulty. For the next few months, the bill will form a major part of the committee's business and I hope that we will discuss whom we will take evidence from, because I have some ideas about that.
You are correct to say that the bill will not cover every improvement that is needed in education; as Sam said, there are other ways of making changes without using legislation. We examine the bill and agree on which aspects to concentrate. We can then discuss whether to call witnesses or to ask someone to brief us on the issues. After that, we can investigate educational issues concerning sport and culture that lie outside the scope of the bill. At the end, we will get clever and prioritise issues that, because they lie outside the bill, are not subject to a strict timetable.
I realise that discussion of sub-committees is under the second item of business. Are we establishing the scope of business at the outset before we decide on that? There is already an awful lot of work, irrespective of the bill that we will investigate. Matters that we want to take on arise weekly. What are your thoughts about how we proceed, given that we will not make a decision about sub-committees until after we have discussed the business?
I would be happy to discuss sub-committees first if Mr Monteith would like to do so.
I support what has been said and believe that what we are doing is correct. However, I have a worry about how we decide our schedule. As you know, I have never experienced Westminster, but my understanding is that committees there decide what their priorities are and establish the order of what will be examined. A pressing issue is taken on board owing to a particular circumstance or after pleading from a member or group of members. The committee then decides whether to rejig its timetable.
As there is going to be a lot of work, sub-committees will allow us to examine matters other than the bill, which could dominate our work. The diary problems for sub-committee meetings are easier to resolve than they are for committee meetings; when five of us cannae make a certain date, the problem is easier to resolve than it is among 11 members. Other members of the committee would not be prevented from attending the sub-committee meeting and culture or sports matters could be brought to the sub-committee's attention. As we know from the standing orders, a sub-committee could not do something without the eventual agreement of the committee. Setting up sub-committees would allow flexibility and enable us to discuss problems that arise.
I would welcome that. The danger is that if we take our eye off the ball—on legislation, for example—we are failing in our duty. The tension between the Executive and committees is built into the system. If we make a hash of things, we will wreck the system at the beginning. Given the comments in our papers about sub-committees, I am interested in your thoughts about how we should progress.
Members will each have received a paper on sub-committees. There are certain procedures that we must go through to establish a sub-committee. At the conveners meeting, the general feeling was that establishing a sub-committee was a lot of trouble, although it would be of benefit for a few members to examine an issue. An informal group could consist of four members, so that there is one member from each party—in a formal sub-committee, there must be proportionality, which would create a ridiculous situation.
Brian would be a busy man.
I have no other committees, so I am relaxed about that.
There would be difficulties in setting up a sub-committee in that way, so I feel that we should have ad hoc arrangements. We should ask members to examine specific items and return to the committee with information that they have gathered in small groupings—here or elsewhere. Such an informal way of advancing things would be more beneficial for committees than the formal structure of sub-committees would.
On that point, Mary, what power would such a level of informality have to bring folk to us? If, for example, we have an informal grouping to discuss sport, and we want people from sportscotland to come and explain something to us, they might go, "You're not a committee. We don't have to come."
In standing orders, there is someone called a reporter—although the actual name has not yet been chosen. A reporter would be empowered to request all the information that a committee is empowered to request. My understanding is that there would be no restrictions on a small group of committee members asking exactly what we would be asking as a whole. Such an exercise would in no way be seen as second class, and that group could take on board only the information that we would be looking for.
An informal briefing would not be a proceeding of the Parliament; it would not have the full powers or protection of a parliamentary proceeding. The committee would always be behind it, however; any difficulties encountered would be referred back to the committee.
Therefore, the informal briefing would not be in the Official Report.
The findings could be read into the minutes of the meeting. It would not be an official report of a parliamentary proceeding, but we would get a report of what the committee adopted at the subsequent meeting.
I can see the value of people looking at the time scale of our work, but I am concerned about sidelining things. Two or three people would go off to do a piece of work—their meetings would not have an official report—they would bring it back to committee and it would end up getting lost. I can see that happening with the sort of agenda that we have. I am not saying that the idea of a sub-committee or working group is not a good idea—I think that it is a good idea—but I want to ensure that such a group could ask to consult particular people and could make recommendations to the committee. If that did not happen, a lot of time could be wasted in taking particular issues forward.
We would have to ensure that there was some structure to what people were doing. I would not want four members to go away, take evidence and discover that their work was wasted. It would be important for those members to deal with a specific remit: after they take evidence or have briefings, they would have to report back to the committee. That would become part of the committee agenda and so would go on the record.
What is the quorum for this committee?
Three.
We do not actually need sub-committees—members need not turn up to deal with things in which they are not interested.
That is right.
We could call it a committee all the time.
Can it be any three who make up the quorum?
I see what is on your mind—you mean people such as yourself? [Laughter.]
Me?
That is an old trick.
You cannot have committee meetings that way. Where is your diary, Mary?
There is some sense in what Fiona says, but members of this committee should not feel obliged to turn up and should not be under pressure. Goodness me, if the committee had two meetings a week, I could not make both. I am coming at this from a different angle. If this committee met twice a week, members would feel under pressure to attend.
We have to be clear why we need working committees. We agree that they will take very important items forward and bring back findings to the committee. An ad hoc arrangement would be inappropriate. We need a time scale and terms of reference for the pieces of work that we do, so that members are clear about what is expected of them and about the status of the work that they bring back. Otherwise, we might say, "It's only art," or, "It's only sport, so it doesn't matter." I do not think that that would give all the issues that we cover a fair say.
Yes, but there would need to be an understanding that it would not be a formal sub-committee. I say that only because of the procedures that we have to go through to establish a sub-committee. Perhaps Gillian can expand on that.
In order to establish a sub-committee, a motion must go from the bureau to the Parliament for approval. The committee would need to go through the bureau to obtain agreement.
That is a rather long-winded route.
Is there a concern that the bureau might not agree to move such a motion if we asked it to?
It is not so much that; rather, the concern is about the time that it would take. If we meet on a Wednesday and decide that we want to establish a sub-committee, the issue would be put off by a week, as the bureau does not meet until the following Tuesday. During that time, we could have agreed an informal group and the members involved could have met on the Tuesday and prepared a report ready to come back to the committee. It is more to do with time and the formal procedure that must be followed than anything else.
For the sake of argument—members can disagree with me—we could simply ask for three sub-committees on sport, education and culture, with four members on two of the sub-committees and three members on the third. We could try to achieve political balance, although we cannot get all four parties on the three-man—sorry, the three-person—committee, but would that not be a simple request to submit to the bureau?
The difficulty with that approach, Jamie, is that I guarantee that the issue that a member is interested in would be on the agenda for a different sub-committee, and that is why I am reluctant to get into that situation.
I wish to raise a point for clarification, convener. Jamie talked about all parties, but, given the new politics and the coalition, does that mean that Labour and the Liberal Democrats would have to be represented separately on sub-committees, or would they have only one representative?
Nicola, to be honest, I hope that we would not need to worry about the representation of the parties on these groups. It should not be a consideration.
But we have been told that it is a consideration.
I know that. We have been told that because someone said that we should try to get a balance between the four parties, which would be all right. However, we should try to work together and see whether there are four members who, as a group, would come back to the committee and report on sport or culture, without always following party lines.
I would be happy with that.
That is great.
If we have an informal arrangement, we do not need to have a representative from each party, which would let Brian off occasionally. Gillian will correct me if I am wrong, but, on formal sub-committees, the standing orders say that there must be proportionality, which is another difficulty. On establishing sub-committees, the standing orders say that the committee
I think that people would be happy with an informal arrangement, taking on board Cathy's point about ensuring that there was both structure and accountability, which was a good point.
I agree with that. We are clear about what we are looking for, what we are trying to find out and how we report back to the committee. Those reports would be recorded as party of the committee's business.
May I give an example? We are reaching a form of consensus—oh, hush my mouth—
Brian, can you spell consensus?
I spell it with a "k".
I take it that, rather than an ad hoc or informal group, we are discussing point 6 of the paper on sub-committees, which reads:
I think that that is what the committee is looking for.
On occasion, we could send Mike Russell away and tell him to come back and report to the committee. We can trust these people—why not?
That might be rash.
One of the things that defines members of the Liberal party is that they are trusting, nice people.
I look forward to the day Ian says the same thing about me.
On that note of consensus, we move on to a more difficult issue, which is prioritising what we will deal with. A number of specific issues about the improvement in Scottish education bill were raised at our previous meeting and have been again since then. Does anyone wish to add anything to that list?
I would like to add a few items, but before I go through them, I want to comment on the approach here. A fair representation of the issues came out of last week's meeting, but I am reluctant to see the committee define too closely the issues in the education bill that we think are important. I would rather approach it from the point of view of identifying the bodies, organisations or individuals that we would like to hear from; they may raise issues that we had not thought of. Any list of issues that we agree on now is not definitive.
The Law Society of Scotland could advise us who is the most appropriate lawyer to speak to the committee.
We probably want to hear from an academic rather than a lawyer.
There is no mention of school libraries in the bill. I would like the committee to look into that and take evidence on the fact that school libraries improve standards in schools.
It may well be deliberate, but there seems to be next to nothing on community education in the bill. It is important but it is not there. I am talking about informal learning.
There is a great deal of uncertainty in community education in Scotland. The way forward is not at all clear, and conflicting messages have been coming out for some years. The committee would be well advised to address that issue—we would be doing a service to the whole of Scotland.
The committee will remember that we do not have sole responsibility for community education, as we share it with the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.
In terms of youth work? Working with young people is an integral part of the work.
Yes.
There is a culture spin-off from it as well, which those of us who have been councillors have all seen.
Cathy, are you talking about community education in terms of the bill or in general?
Community education should be included in the bill in some way.
The bill is really about schools and education.
It talks about including young people in education and addressing issues about community schools as part of a holistic approach to education. For me, community education is also an holistic approach to education.
Community education is often based in schools. To take a community school such as Balerno, the lead community education person is on the management team of the school. I recommend that the committee looks at Balerno as an example, to help sweep up some of those issues, including community education. I see Brian nodding—that is a good sign.
I assumed that we would talk about the whole bill. The bill is all about standards and how information is assessed, gathered and used. It is important to look into that and the role of HM inspectors of schools.
It is useful for members of the committee to get an idea of the issues that they think are important at this stage, but that does not mean that other issues will not arise later. As Nicola Sturgeon pointed out, if we invite people to speak to us, they may raise aspects of the matter that we had not thought of. Our list of subjects is just a guide; it is not prescriptive in any way.
As an opening gambit, I have a number of organisations to suggest, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the main teaching unions, and the General Teaching Council, whose paper should not be ignored in our consideration of the bill. I also suggest Her Majesty's inspectors, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, the Scottish School Boards Association and the Scottish Parent Teacher Council.
The Scottish Qualifications Authority is notable by its absence from the list. Someone from that organisation should come to speak to us.
Pre-school education is going to become statutory for the first time, so we need advice from pre-school bodies.
The Scottish Pre-School Play Association needs to be involved, as it is interested not only in pre-school provision, but in parental involvement in that provision. On community education and community development, we should invite the Community Development Foundation.
I note Nicola's suggestion that we should consult the Child Poverty Action Group. A number of agencies that deal with children will have a view on the education bill and its impact on children. It is not the only group that could contribute, but it is one that should be considered.
Other members may be aware that the Child Poverty Action Group is lobbying for an amendment to the bill to extend eligibility for free school meals. That is why I am suggesting that organisation, but I realise that other bodies may have something to contribute.
I too am in touch with the Child Poverty Action Group and I am aware of the debate on school meals. There is some discussion about whether that falls within our remit, as free school meals are currently provided as part of the benefits system.
We must not be slaves to pressure groups. All those groups have remits of their own and we do not want simply to hear from one group after another. Rather, we should go out to schools and meet children and teachers.
That is a dangerous view to take. None of the organisations that I have listed could be described as pressure groups; they are representative organisations.
I am not trying to put them down.
We must hear the opinions of those who will have to implement and deal with the decisions that are made by this Parliament. I dissociate myself completely from a description of some of those organisations as mere pressure groups.
I remind members to go through the chair, as a number of members have been waiting to speak.
I agree about the organisations that have been mentioned. The only one on your list that I did not hear mentioned is the Scottish Council of Independent Schools, which is included for consultation on the education bill and is likely to be included in the General Teaching Council for Scotland section that will no doubt be added. Because there are implications for registration procedures and because an independent school member of the GTC is a possibility, the Scottish Council of Independent Schools should be asked, as I am not entirely sure that we will hear from it what we think we might.
We now have some suggestions.
They can have 10 minutes each.
Following from what Ken said, I think that the idea of going out and talking to people is lovely, but we should not fall into the trap of what we heard from ministers last week—of thinking that if we go out and talk to people they can talk to us and we can learn something. Examining ways of getting information from people—especially young people—is down on the list somewhere. Before we meet people, we should ensure that we will do so in a way that is appropriate and will achieve something—rather than everybody saying, "Thanks for coming to see us."
I certainly did not want to give the impression that I am putting down any organisations—the use of the term pressure groups was wrong. I am quite happy with all of those organisations. I agree with Fiona that we want to make sure that we hear from children.
I ask the committee to bear with me. There are a number of people whom we want to invite. I am happy to work with the committee clerk to arrange for those people and others representing various interests to come to the committee in an ordered way, so that we can speak to as many as possible. I take on board the point that we must not lose sight of the other areas that are covered by the committee. I will work with Gillian to produce a programme to show when people will come to the committee.
Given what I was saying last week about school structures, revenue and capital, can I take it that the representative of COSLA who comes to see us will be the appropriate person from the distribution committee—either the chairman or the clerk of services, who seem to be the key people in the matter of capital?
Will such a meeting come under the bill section, or under the more general education part?
That is a fair point. Maybe, it should come under the more general education part, but I hope that you will bear in mind what I said.
Very much so.
I gave a number of items that are outwith the bill to Gillian. They are: Steiner/Waldorf schools; foreign language teaching in primaries; the teaching of Scottish history; and, although it should be addressed later as it requires some time, class sizes and pupil:teacher ratios.
Can we take on board Ken's point about including Gaelic education in this?
I suggested the item on current initiatives in secondary education; the list specifies higher still, but I meant that as just an example. Other matters such as five to 14 and testing are also important and although they have not yet been discussed at meetings, we should cover them at some time.
I do not have anything to add to the list of issues, but I have a view on what our priorities should be.
It would be useful to hear about members' priorities. We could then draw up a timetable for the committee to agree to.
It is obvious that we will want to take evidence on the education bill from a range of organisations, but further to Jamie's point, if COSLA representatives are here to talk about the education bill, there is no reason why we cannot kill two birds with one stone. Of course, COSLA would have to be told in advance that we wanted to ask questions on other matters.
No, not yet; we will discuss it separately.
I would like us to consider how the youth culture strategy impinges on our schools; that may be a crossover issue. I agree that Gaelic is important, but we must have a mechanism to encourage children to speak and learn Scots language in schools. Music and culture, as we knew them, are disappearing from schools and we need a positive strategy to bring them back. We talk about poverty and we want to ensure that young children have a voice, but it is bad for children's confidence if they cannot use their mother tongue to express their opinions. We should consider the whole issue of culture and language.
It is clear that members want the curriculum to develop to include subjects such as culture, sport and the use of Gaelic and Scots language. We also think that education has a role to play in teaching some kind of civic responsibility. That is perhaps being squeezed at the moment and we may want it to be further up our agenda.
I understand that.
We will see how things go with that one. There seems to be quite a lot that we could take on board. Shall we deal now with the issues under the heading of children and young people?
Child-centred policies and the UN convention on the rights of children are among those issues. Perhaps rather than becoming involved in working out what should be happening, we should push the Executive—which has made statements about those issues—to say what it is doing.
I am aware that, because of the nature of the committee and the business load that it will have, there may be ways in which we can address those issues other than asking someone to come and speak to us about them. The committee may request briefings, or two or three members of the committee may be asked to go away as we discussed earlier.
I would be happy to report on my involvement in those issues, if it would be helpful, and we could consider ways of taking them forward.
That might be a way of making progress. We talked earlier about having small groups examining parts of the education bill; we might similarly ask several members to report back to the committee on such issues. We could obviously use Nicola's expertise as well. We will make a note of that and add it to the report that will be presented to the committee. Are there any other issues concerning children and young people?
I quite like the broad headings. Is that how we are going to proceed? Is the agenda going to be the education bill, followed by other education issues—specifically wider curricular issues and the others that we talked about—and a section on children and young people?
There will be many overlaps, which is why I am wary of saying that that is how we will proceed.
We will have an hour and a half to discuss the education bill—is that the plan?
In terms of practicality, that would be a good way forward, but we should retain some flexibility. That gives people an idea of what is on the agenda and what is coming up, so that they can decide their business accordingly.
I wondered about that last item, and I mentioned it to Nicola just before she left the room. Would we be a lead committee on the children's reporters thing, or would that fall to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee? There must be funny wee bits.
That clearly overlaps the remit of both committees.
I am quite happy to discuss the matter. I am not trying to stop the discussion.
If we discuss it and think that it is important, should we tell the Justice and Home Affairs Committee?
Yes. That idea of the flow of information from one committee to another has been raised at the conveners committee. As we are all so busy, we do not want to carry out the same work twice. However, we may approach a certain issue from a different angle and we may want to share our information with somebody else.
Given sportscotland's remit, and the fact that a great deal of work on soccer and rugby is done outwith sportscotland, it would be useful for the Scottish Football Association, the Scottish Premier League and the Scottish League to brief us. We could also ask to see the Scottish Rugby Union.
There are many more organisations than sportscotland. I cannot remember them all, but the Scottish Association of Local Sports Councils and a few similar organisations often have a different point of view from that of sportscotland. It will be important to get a mix of opinions, particularly from grass-roots organisations.
What might be useful is for us first to have a briefing from sportscotland on the issues that have been identified so far. We could then see which other organisations or individuals we want to ask for further information. You are right: there will be other organisations that we will want to invite at that stage. Finally, we move on to culture.
I suggest that the integrated information strategy be taken out of the culture section. We might want to look at that separately. I asked a question on the strategy a week or so ago and was given the usual vague answer, but the Executive did say that it would come to the Parliament with some thoughts on the strategy by the middle of the autumn. The feeling from the profession is that we must get a move on with that. The end of the year is looming and that would have been the time for Scotland to set off into the next information century. I suggest that this is not a cultural issue, but one that stands alone.
I suggested earlier that we should look at the Scottish music business.
I am sorry, I had forgotten that. I will include it.
Your list of business already includes the national theatre. The junior minister for culture has mentioned that that will be part of the debate on the national cultural strategy, so we should bring forward our discussion on that, rather than put it back.
That was mentioned during the debate on the cultural strategy, so it might be something that members want to raise with the minister when she attends the committee.
I would like to add cultural tourism. It impinges a little on other committees, but coming from the Highlands as I do, I am convinced—I do not want to use unparliamentary language—that we can fleece the Yanks and the rest of the world when they come to Scotland. One thing that I would be keen on is a Highland clearances centre with a database. That could be replicated in many parts of Scotland. We have a tremendous product, and I am not sure that the tourism and education worlds are focused on its potential. This connects to what Cathy was saying. We must recognise that we are not only Loch Ness monsters or hey Jimmys—we are more diverse than that.
Not all Scottish music is performed by Moira Anderson. I would like us to do a wee bit better with Scottish music traditions. [Laughter.]
Thank heavens.
That is well said.
The committee might have dealt with visits to community schools while I was out of the room—if so, interrupt me. We should arrange a limited programme of visits to a number of schools to get a first-hand view of the situation, not only in the community schools, but in rural and urban schools.
We will end the meeting with a discussion on travel. You are right, Nicola: such visits would be helpful. We will include community schools in the list of bodies from which we would like to take evidence.
The tourist boards used to have an events and festivals budget. I seem to remember that those budgets were removed when Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise were shaken up. It might be advisable to talk to people from those bodies.
That is true.
That sounds like the best that we can do.
And we will have a regular additional meeting every week now?
Yes. We will send round a schedule to give members an idea of when the meetings will be.
I suggest that, if we are going to make a visit, we should try to make the best use of that time. If possible, we should consider other aspects of the committee's work. I suggest that we visit Burnfoot Community School in Hawick and take on some of the rugby issues in the Borders, where the introduction of professionalism is having an impact on young people and on the teaching and development of the game at local clubs.
You are looking for my seat.
No.
That is a useful suggestion. We should make the best use of any visits that we undertake. I have been warned against going to the Borders or the Highlands in December and January, but we will try to organise a visit as soon as possible.
I assume that such trips are not meant to be done in the Westminster style, with pomp and ceremony and people wearing silver—I was going to say medals, but perhaps that would not have been a wise word. Could not we go in a minibus or something?
Could not we take "the" bus?
Is there only the one?
We could take a bus from St Andrew Square or George Street, or wherever they stop these days. I assure members that the committee will not require any pomp and circumstance. We are all aware that we have a job to do, which is the reason for a visit if we go anywhere.
No.
The committee will have to agree to every visit, so that they can be put on the agenda.
Do you want us to propose visits?
If members have specific issues that we could address, it might be useful if they could pass them on to Gillian. Then we can list them and determine where there are overlaps. I take on board Karen's point about making the best use of visits.
May I put an issue on the agenda for the next meeting?
You can indeed.
I would like members of the committee to consider signing up to the children's promise. As we are the children's committee of the Scottish Parliament, it would be appropriate to give our last hour's wages to children's charities.
We should consider that and take a recommendation to our colleagues as well. That will be on the agenda for the next meeting. Members should pass on to the clerk any other items that arise. Thank you very much for your attendance.
Meeting closed at 16:16.