Work Programme
Item 3 is the committee's work programme for the next year. As members know, we had a useful two days last week discussing the work programme with various experts and ministers.
I highlight one piece of work that is on the agenda—the issue of a children's commissioner. Members will be aware that we have been working on that for some time. Last year, our work was delayed because of the Scottish Qualifications Authority inquiry. However, the committee is absolutely and whole-heartedly committed to the idea and an adviser is working on it.
I was therefore surprised and disappointed to read in the Sunday Herald that an Executive source held the view that the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs is considering taking responsibility for the children's commissioner inquiry away from the committee. I do not think that that is in the gift of the Executive. Following the committee's discussions with the minister last week, I was surprised to read that. I intend to write to the First Minister to ask for an assurance that there is no Executive plan to remove the responsibility from the committee for investigating and proposing legislation on a children's commissioner. I have had no indication from the Executive that it holds that view, but it would be useful to have that on record and to have reassurance from the First Minister.
There is a slot in the work programme between now and Christmas. I envisage the committee using most of, if not all, that time to take evidence on a children's commissioner. We could also use that time to hold a conference for children and young people—something that the Executive would not do if it took charge of the issue. From the evidence that we took at the conference on 25 June, it struck me that children and young people have different views, expectations and hopes of a children's commissioner from the views, aspirations and hopes of the organisations that work with children. The committee feels strongly that we should organise a civic participation event that involves children and young people from all sections of society in Scotland to take their views on what the role and responsibilities of a children's commissioner should be.
That is an important piece of work for the committee and I welcome members' views on what I have said about the committee's role and on how we should proceed with the issue.
I endorse your view, convener. As I understand it, the committee has a unanimous and strong commitment to developing the idea of a children's commissioner. Symbolically, if for no other reason, it is important that that work be done across the parties with a measure of independence from the Executive. That principle has guided all our thinking. We should consider not proceeding in that way only if there is an issue of urgency and time.
The Executive's legislative programme appears to be full. The difficulty with the time scale would be in finishing the consultation and getting assistance with drafting, both of which could be facilitated if the Executive assisted the committee, particularly with the drafting.
In the circumstances, I, too, was surprised by what I read in the newspapers. I do not believe that there is any power in the world by which a minister can remove an item from a committee. The committee is autonomous and serves the Parliament. Certainly, the Executive could suggest that it takes on the item and it could negotiate and discuss the issue with the committee. In some circumstances, the Executive might just start on something and to hell with whether the committee is involved. However, to give the impression that the committee is a grace-and-favour instrument of the minister in acting on the issue would be entirely wrong. The committee is undertaking the project because it has a commitment to the idea, it wants it to succeed and it is doing the right things.
The committee needs to take action as promptly as possible. I am grateful to the convener for indicating that the committee's priority between now and Christmas should be to complete an inquiry. I hope that the Executive will lend some resources to the committee for the drafting of a bill thereafter. We should then be able to introduce and complete the progress of that bill during 2002. That should be distinctly possible and it would be an achievement not for us but for the young people of Scotland.
Convener, I support your statement and what Mike Russell has said. We have started down the road and there are expectations that we will continue with that work.
The seminar that was held at the end of last year to hear what young people had to say was a clear indication that young people in Scotland expect some kind of structure that will listen to what they are saying.
I have met some young people and organisations that work with young people. They are gearing up to give evidence on a children's commissioner. Likewise, some local authorities are keen to develop their children's commissioner with a view to linking into a national children's commissioner. Those local commissioners would be independent.
The idea that the committee would proceed with the bill for a children's commissioner has been welcomed. I was therefore surprised by the article in the Sunday Herald. I would like the matter to be checked out.
I agree with Mike Russell. It would be helpful to get some assistance with drafting somewhere down the line. This will be a big piece of work but the committee is up to doing that work. The time scale is important. We want to get the legislation in place as soon as possible. We have an adviser in place. We have the mechanism to start the work and we need to get on with it.
I do not want to take up too much time. I agree with everything that has been said. I have learned not to believe everything that I read in the papers and I hope that the report was mistaken. The report indicates that a children's commissioner is a good idea, so the Executive ought to work with the committee to get the legislation through as quickly as possible. As has been said, we are in a better position because of the groundwork that has already been done and the methods that we have introduced to consult young people. We can show that the idea is in the ownership of the nation, including the young people of the nation. I hope that we can go ahead with the idea with Executive help.
In the constructive discussions that we had with the minister last week, he indicated that he would consider giving Executive support for drafting. He gave no indication that he wished to take the issue over. I will give him the benefit of the doubt until someone tells me otherwise, but I will seek reassurance from the First Minister.
I assume that we are agreed that the issue should be a work priority between now and Christmas and that we should aim to have a report concluded before the Christmas recess. We would then be able to propose legislation for inclusion in the legislative programme for September 2002. The bill will be a committee bill, which will require us to dedicate a substantial chunk of the timetable to it, but I know that members are willing to do that.
We will also have to consider putting in a bid to hold a civic participation event for young people towards the end of the consultation process. The logistics of that will be difficult. We should hold that event and we should make a bid to the conveners liaison group for funds. That will be well worth doing and a host of young people and children from across Scotland would want to become involved. As members who represent a wide cross-section of Scotland, we also have a role in holding discussions with young people and children in our constituencies to get a local view. To some extent, that has already happened in Glasgow.
If members are agreed, I suggest that the clerks draw up a paper seeking funding for the civic participation event and that we present it to the conveners liaison group as soon as possible. Once we have spoken with our adviser this afternoon, we should timetable the various evidence-taking sessions. I also suggest that we write to everyone who took part in the event on 25 June. There is general consensus that a children's commissioner is a good idea, but we need to put some meat on the bones—to deal with the practicalities of, for example, how that person would interact with other bodies. Our adviser has suggested a list of questions that we might want to examine. We want to ask everyone who gave evidence to and participated in the conference in June for their views.
Are we discussing the matter under agenda item 7?
We will discuss it in fuller detail under item 7.
When we are planning the next event in consultation with children and young people, will we bear in mind the findings of our report on best practice on how to consult children and young people?
Absolutely. We cannot criticise anyone else if we do not do that.
Let us discuss other issues that members want to put on the agenda. I suggest that we first consider any short inquiries that members wish us to conduct over the coming weeks. Ian Jenkins and Mike Russell have views on that.
I draw to the attention of the committee the problems associated with the overspend in the Scottish Borders Council education budget over the past couple of years—I know that members are already aware of the situation—and the controversy that has arisen out of the council's attempt to deal with the matter, which has involved cuts across the board in education. As the committee conducted such a big inquiry into special educational needs provision, it will be particularly interested in how the cuts have affected SEN provision.
I have indicated throughout that there is a need for transparency and accountability in the way that the issue is dealt with. On 28 June, I asked the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs to consider bringing in the inspectors and to hold an independent audit. Those proposals have been agreed to and, to that extent, the situation will be scrutinised.
However, I still think that the committee can do a great deal in ensuring transparency. There is a strong feeling in the Borders community that questions need to be examined and answered in public. I would be grateful if the committee came to the Borders to hold some evidence sessions, including a formal committee meeting, and perhaps to visit some schools and meet those who are now called stakeholders—teachers, parents and young people, whom Irene McGugan would want us to consult.
I hope that we will find time for that in our schedule. The issue has implications not just for the Borders; there are wider implications to do with the funding of special educational needs and other financial matters such as budgeting and ring fencing. In the meantime, until the audit has been delivered to the council and to the public, I suggest that we ask for some written evidence as a basis for the proposed visit. At that point it would be useful for us, even though Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education might not have been in by that time, to conduct some sessions that would raise issues in public.
That is one bid.
Before I put in my bid, let me say that Ian Jenkins has made some sensible points. I am sure that we all agree with him and want to help him.
What he said was curiously reminiscent of comments that were made last Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning in a press release in the name of Ian Jenkins. In the same press release, those comments were welcomed by Drew Tulley, the convener of the Scottish Borders Council. We were told that the committee had been requested to have a meeting—a request that had been granted. I do not know whether Mr Jenkins's press releases operate a week ahead of actuality. I would be happy to share the press release, which the local paper has reported, with Mr Jenkins—I have a copy on my desk.
Mr Jenkins is right in principle, even if he has asked the committee to hold that meeting a week after he told the Scottish Borders Council that the meeting was going to happen. We should go to the Borders to consider the matter, which is causing great concern, and to determine whether we can assist. I am sure that we will be ably led by Mr Jenkins in that task.
I am sure that we all find it amusing to take lectures from Mr Russell on press releases.
I merely suggest a modicum of good timing.
Carry on with your suggestion.
The situation at Scottish Ballet has caused considerable concern to many people. The committee undertook an extensive inquiry into the national arts companies—it was one of the committee's first major inquiries—in December 1999.
Those of us who have watched the situation at Scottish Ballet unfolding believe that it is another "Groundhog Day". Staff were not told of changes until 20 minutes before a press release went out. Alarmingly on that occasion, in a statement in the press release, the Scottish Arts Council assented to the changes without having consulted anyone. As press coverage and statements demonstrate, there is a need to consider maturely and in the full light of day the management of the company, which many regard as woeful—again—and the policy that is being pursued.
I am sure that one afternoon would do us. The problem is that the meeting must be arranged quickly, as things are developing rapidly. We would need to meet the chairman and chief executive of the company, people from the Scottish Arts Council and from the company—including the artistic director, Robert North, who, I believe, has been treated scandalously—the trade unions and perhaps another group, such as the Friends of Scottish Ballet. That would give us the opportunity to issue, two years on, a supplementary report to our national arts companies report and to make a constructive contribution.
In a parliamentary answer to a question that I lodged, the Deputy Minister for Sport, the Arts and Culture last week indicated that he thought that there should be consultation and discussion about the matter. We could play our part in that helpful process.
Are there any other suggestions for short inquiries? Are members agreed that those two should go ahead?
Members indicated agreement.
The Scottish Ballet inquiry is urgent. We have a slot in our timetable next week and I suggest that today we ask the individuals that Mr Russell has mentioned to come to the committee next week. I appreciate that that is short notice, but the situation has moved on and there are many views on it. Therefore, it would be helpful for us to have the discussion and to hear from, in particular, the trade unions, as the jobs and livelihoods of some people will depend on what happens. There are also cultural issues about Scottish Ballet and our place in the world of dance.
We have arranged to meet next week in committee room 3. Given the public interest, that might be a problem logistically. I wonder whether the clerks could arrange a swap.
We have arranged for a move to committee room 1, which will allow for broadcasting.
I will liaise with Martin Verity on the names that I suggested.
I hope that we can keep the meeting to one afternoon. If individuals cannot make it, I will allow some leeway—a part slot could be used the following week. However, I would not like the evidence taking to go on beyond that.
Written evidence should be requested, too.
Yes, we can request that today. We can put a notice on the website, asking for the evidence to be sent in as quickly as possible. Most of us will have already received representations from members of the public and from organisations.
On Ian Jenkins's request, I declare an interest—I was educated in the Borders, at Jedburgh Grammar School. Obviously, people get a fine education in the Borders. I am sure that that will continue.
I suggest that we write to the council and to the Executive—to the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs and to the Minister for Finance and Local Government—and ask for information on what they are doing. We should go down to the Borders to show the people of the Borders that, if nothing else, we are interested in their situation. Our powers are limited—it is for the local authority to decide how it uses its budgets. However, we should be able to take evidence and to make representations to the authority.
It would be useful to get as many people as possible involved in what would be an informal evidence-taking session. I appreciate the logistical difficulties of having a formal committee meeting—the need to have staff from the official report and so on—but we should aim to have one meeting there. Having discussed the matter with Mike Russell and Ian Jenkins, I know that there are two or three locations around the Borders that would be beneficial for that type of inquiry. Galashiels is the obvious place in which to hold a committee meeting because facilities are available there, but it might be useful for us to venture further south. Obviously, I have an interest in our going to somewhere like Jedburgh.
Not somewhere like Jedburgh, but Jedburgh itself.
Jedburgh would be fine. I suggest that we go to Jedburgh to take evidence. We could also go to Hawick, because a number of issues concerning the national grid for learning affect Hawick High School. Those are the potential venues.
Kelso should also feature.
Kelso should also feature. I know that people in the Borders would welcome it if we were to deal with the south and north of the council area. I suggest that we have our evidence-taking sessions in the Borders around the beginning of November.
The committee will also deal with legislation, the first piece of which will be the school education (amendment) (Scotland) bill. The bill will not be particularly controversial, but we will want to take evidence at stage 1 on issues such as placing requests and we should report to the Parliament as soon as possible. If it is practical, we could schedule that for 23 October, which is after the recess. That would allow us to consider the bill at stage 2 towards the end of November, so that the Parliament can perhaps deal with it before the Christmas recess—I do not know the Parliament's timetable, so I would need to talk to the business managers about that.
It should not be difficult for the Parliament to deal with the bill before Christmas.
The other bill for which we will have responsibility is the protection of children bill, which we had thought would be sent to one of the justice committees. The good news is that we will be the lead committee. We will need to take advice from the Parliamentary Bureau on how that bill is to be timetabled. I think that that bill is not as far down the line as the school education bill, but as soon as I have information I will inform the committee. Again, although there may be amendments at stage 2, the general principles of the bill will not be controversial so we should be able to tie up the evidence taking in a couple of days. To date, I have had no indication that we will be considering that bill before Christmas.
Our report on Gaelic broadcasting also needs to be scheduled into our timetable. Can Mike Russell indicate when he will bring that forward?
I am grateful to Judith Evans for working with me on some of the ideas for an outline draft report. We could consider the draft report in approximately a month's time, around 23 October. I do not expect much difficulty in producing a final report for the following week and, given that we have not had many diverse opinions, we could publish the report the week after that. In outline, the timetable would be that we consider the draft report on 23 October and the final report on 30 October. We would then publish it the following week.
That seems fine.
We will also need to make space in the timetable for the budget proposals for 2002-03, on which Allan Wilson has agreed to give evidence on or around 23 October. We should also ask Nicol Stephen and Jack McConnell, the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs, to come to the committee. We were all critical of last year's budget process and we need to give adequate notice to the ministers. We want to take evidence on that before Christmas. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
That ties up all the other loose stuff. Last week, we discussed our priorities. There was a consensus that we should do something specific on each of our three areas of responsibility of education, culture and sport. Let me begin with education. From our discussions last week, where do members think we are going?
The background is that we have been firefighting. Although we have looked at problems, we have never had an opportunity to do some blue-skies thinking on where education in Scotland is going. It would be good if we could consider what education is for. We could ask the stakeholders involved in education in Scotland what they think education is for and what changes are required. That would be a big piece of work on which we could start fairly quickly. I know that other members are quite keen to develop that. Our committee could do something positive for education in Scotland.
There is a desire to ask some big questions about education. The biggest question of all is, "What is education for?" If we know what it is for, we can then ask how it can best be delivered. I understand that the Executive no longer has a commitment to publish a green paper on education this year. The committee could usefully ask those big questions.
The mechanism by which we should do that is by commissioning academic thinkers and practical thinkers to do a piece of work for us that would open up the issue. A joint paper could be written asking lots of questions and making some suggestions. We could then put that paper out for wide consultation in as many unconventional ways as we can think of. We could consider the responses, put in our views and develop a vision of where education in Scotland should be going. In our discussion last week, there was unanimity that that would be an exciting thing to do.
I agree with that. The Executive—like its predecessors and like us—gets carried away by events, which prevent people from standing back to think about things. It is important that we do that. We need to ask the big questions and then critically examine how we are delivering and assessing all the things that go on in education.
If members are agreed, we will make a submission to the conveners liaison group to commission a paper from four academics. We will indicate that, arising from our discussions last week, we would like Lindsay Paterson, Keir Bloomer and two others to be involved in that process. Does Cathy Peattie have some thoughts?
I am keen that Sally Brown should be involved.
A fourth possibility was also considered last week.
That covers a number of different views on the future of education and will help us to produce a wide-ranging paper with a number of questions. The committee can then discuss how to consult on that.
It is realistic to commission the paper and put it out for consultation around Christmas. That can be followed by a period of consultation in which we should use the most imaginative ways that are open to us. We can commission an opinion poll, survey or focus group—whatever is the best way of consulting widely. That will ensure that we get the genuine views of ordinary Scots about their concerns, hopes and aspirations for their children. We can also consult the young people who are in the system at present—those who want it to stay the same and those who wish to see change. All those views will be appreciated.
Following the Easter recess, we can go out to the furthest parts of our communities in Scotland to put to people some of the big questions that we want to ask. If members agree, I propose that we put in a bid for funding from next year's budget for that part of our work programme.
I wonder whether there is space in the proposal to include among the big thinkers we invite to give evidence practitioners who may have turned around a school or an education environment. No names come to mind, but we may be able to find someone who, against the odds, has tried something that has made a genuine difference. We should find space for that to happen, as well as for the positive stuff that we received last week from some of the bigger thinkers in education.
We should understand that, at the outset, we are making a genuine attempt to achieve a wide-ranging paper, following which we will seek everybody's response. We are not trying to produce a paper that threatens vested interests or is representative of anything. The paper will not be representative of anything except the views of the people who write it. We are talking about finding people who have interesting ideas and responding to those ideas. We are trying not to threaten vested interests, lay down policy or narrow options, but to offer the best opportunity for this generation to debate education outwith the usual partisan, narrow battleground. Let us encourage people to be positive. Let us have the courage of our convictions to start the debate with a unique paper from four unique individuals who hold unique views.
If we do this right, it will be an exciting development for Scottish education, which could help to shape events in the years to come. The process starts not with an attempt to develop policy but with an attempt to ascertain the views, hopes and aspirations of the people of Scotland. That is a novel approach, which is to be welcomed.
Are we agreed that we put the proposal to the relevant body for funding?
Members indicated agreement.
I will let the committee know the funding body's response as soon as it is received.
We move on to the next area, which is culture. Cathy Peattie—
Cathy Peattie is culture.
Cathy, give us a song.
A song is no problem, but there is much more to Scottish culture than singing.
There has been a wide debate on the need to examine cultural tourism. Questions have been asked as to whether people come to Scotland to look at Edinburgh Castle or to hear and to participate in our music and our language. Do they come to visit our galleries? Why do people come to Scotland and how do we promote Scotland?
Tourism does not form part of our remit, but culture most certainly does. The opportunity exists to examine culture in a positive way: to identify the links between coming to look at Edinburgh Castle and participation in the music and other aspects of Scottish culture. For a long time, folk in Scotland have been shouting that someone should be promoting cultural tourism. Those folk point to Ireland and saying that it has exploited its cultural tourism. The inquiry is important and I look forward to seeing it progress.
Cathy Peattie rightly says that we are not supposed to be coming from the tourism end of the argument. However, if properly undertaken and promoted, cultural tourism is of benefit to the culture of a country, as it gives the culture of a country a vibrancy and sustainability that allows it to flourish. If cultural tourism is not undertaken properly, culture might wither on the vine. Cultural tourism generates value in Scotland and it brings other people into the country to share in and influence our culture.
It would be helpful for us to examine how cultural tourism impacts on the cultural industries and infrastructure of Scotland. Colleagues in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have looked at that issue. We could set up links with them, so that we can learn from their experience. We could work together, as there may be common ground on which we can build.
We need to examine how Scotland can use cultural tourism to develop and support more effectively its cultural industries. Our built heritage is excellent, as are our high and community arts, our traditional music and our language development. All those areas are part of our culture and yet we do not use them to the greatest effect. If we undertake an inquiry, I suggest that the period between the Christmas and Easter recesses is appropriate.
Should we appoint an adviser to undertake that piece of work or will the committee take evidence?
I am open to views from members on that question. We could commission a paper from the clerks on how best to progress the matter. The paper could be presented to the committee at a later date. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
The final area is sport. As I have an unfinished inquiry into sport, I will kick off.
Last week, we had a substantial debate on whether Scottish sport is in need of improvement. We also discussed the underachievement of our national teams over recent months. Arguments were raised as to why that is the case. We should examine seriously how we improve sporting attainment and achievement at a high level and at the grass roots. We are talking about how young people and people who are not so young participate in sport for social inclusion, health and sporting reasons.
I continue to have a responsibility to carry out an initial inquiry on the committee's behalf. I suggest that I report to the committee at the beginning of next year. I further suggest that the committee should progress my initial inquiry by taking evidence as and when required. There are a number of good initiatives in Scotland and overseas. We should look at how other countries of a similar size to Scotland manage—or do not manage—to progress sporting achievement and attainment.
I will come to the next meeting with a fuller breakdown of how my inquiry will be set out. I will also suggest how the committee might get involved following the presentation of my report. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes our discussion on the work programme. We have set ourselves a number of forward-thinking and exciting tasks. Far from being an over-worked committee that needs to speed up its processes, we are a committee that is doing its utmost to develop education, culture and sport in Scotland, as it is our remit to do.