Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 21 Nov 2007

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Official Report 212KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

Children's Services (Special Needs) (PE853)<br />Rural Schools (Closure) (PE872)

I reconvene the meeting. We move to the second item on our agenda, which is consideration of correspondence relating to two outstanding petitions.

Members will recall that we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Fiona Hyslop, on petitions PE853 and PE872. We have received a response, which is detailed in the accompanying papers. There is a suggestion that we may want to reflect on the minister's comments and close our formal consideration of the petitions. I am interested to hear members' comments. I welcome Cathy Jamieson, who has joined us for this item.

I note that the minister says that she understands that there might be a case for keeping PE853 open. However, it might also be useful to keep PE872 open, simply because we are awaiting several developments—it would not take anything for the committee to monitor those developments. If everything fell apart in terms of proposed legislation or a member's bill—I am not saying that it will—the committee would still have the opportunity to pursue the avenue of the petitions. Although the situation looks positive and the cabinet secretary has said that the desire of the petitioners will be met, we are not quite there yet, and there are still a number of concerns around the country. For those reasons, it would be useful to keep the petitions open.

As a former education minister, I take seriously the opportunity to speak on the petitions. I support Richard Baker's comments on keeping them open.

There is a proposal from East Ayrshire Council to close a number of small schools, including a number of rural schools. I am concerned by the arguments that are made in the council's consultation document, which suggest, for example, that the advantages of small schools are outweighed by the disadvantages. It also says that informed educational opinion is that the disadvantages are more than offset by the richer and educationally more secure environment of a larger establishment, where there is a larger pool of ideas, expertise and resources. The document later suggests that the curriculum for excellence cannot be delivered satisfactorily in small schools. That poses some fundamental education questions.

The proposals affect Sorn, Littlemill, St Xavier's and Crossroads primary schools—although the last one is not in my constituency, it serves pupils from my area. Littlemill and St Xavier's schools are in Doon Valley, which is one of the most disadvantaged parts of my constituency.

I would like the petitions to be kept alive, if possible, so that we can pursue some of the matters further. I appreciate that the committee may simply want to hold the petitions open and monitor developments, and that would be helpful too.

I am happy to agree with the comments from Mr Baker and Ms Jamieson. It is important that we keep the petitions open until we are absolutely clear on the parliamentary procedure and until some of the issues that Cathy Jamieson has raised are addressed.

If there are no further comments, it is suggested that we keep the petitions open with a view to monitoring the situation and ensuring that the cabinet secretary follows through on the strong commitment that she gave in her letter to the committee, in which she said that she intends to consult on the matter and to legislate. The committee should monitor the situation closely and return to the issue if the commitment is not followed through. I am sure that the petitioners will be pleased that we have agreed to keep both petitions open.

---

Schools (Class Sizes) (PE1046)

PE1046, on class sizes, was referred to us by the Public Petitions Committee. Members have a paper that suggests an approach to the petition. I invite comments.

The petition is timely, given discussions about class sizes. I am concerned that a somewhat elongated timetable for consideration is being proposed as a result of the need to collect statistics. Of course, various parties might comment when statistics have been published, but given the currency of the issue I would have thought that we could have an evidence session on class sizes with Fiona Hyslop when she comes to the committee on 5 December to discuss the budget. Many parties seem to think that class sizes are an issue in the context of the budget.

It is likely that we will question the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning on class sizes when she gives evidence—I cannot imagine that the issue will not be raised—but we will have limited time with her, and there is a range of issues to consider.

When Mr Smith brought the petition on behalf of the Educational Institute of Scotland, was he asked for guidance on what

"significant reductions in class sizes"

means? I am not sure that the petitioner has indicated the position that we are starting from and where he would like us to end up. The clerks might know whether the matter was discussed by the Public Petitions Committee—if they do not know, I am quite happy to read the Official Report of the meeting at which PE1046 was considered.

The clerks advise me that they are not aware of the discussion in the Public Petitions Committee.

I will read the Official Report of the meeting, because although there is general support for a reduction in class sizes there are issues to do with what that means.

I do not disagree with the members who have spoken. We can keep the petition open, and we will surely ask the cabinet secretary about class sizes on 5 December. We can reserve our position, so that we can continue scrutiny if issues are outstanding after that meeting. The issue relates to policy as well as to the budget, so it would not be appropriate to consider it purely in the context of the budget. We can tell the petitioner that we will start consideration of PE1046 on 5 December and that if issues are outstanding after that meeting we will decide how to take matters forward.

I see that Mr Gibson wants to comment, and I will allow him to do so, but first it might be helpful if I respond to members' points.

I appreciate that the cabinet secretary will soon give evidence to the committee. Indeed, she will attend meetings in two consecutive weeks: next week she will give evidence on the Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Bill, and the week after she will give evidence on the budget. However, she will give evidence on the budget for about an hour and a half, and although we want to question her thoroughly we do not want the session to be excessive. The cabinet secretary has always tried to stay with the committee as long as possible, and she has never complained about lengthy evidence sessions.

Class sizes is a major policy issue and we would not do it justice if we crammed it in with our budget consideration. Further, the committee has already agreed to an approach paper on the budget: we said that we would focus primarily on funding for the HE and FE sectors. Although we have said that there will be an opportunity to ask more general questions, if we move too far away from our agreed focus, some of the witnesses who we have invited to give evidence on the budget—today and next week—will not be as appropriate as they otherwise would have been.

I have no problem with people asking the minister some questions about class sizes when she comes before us in December—as Mary Mulligan said, it is highly unlikely that the issue will not be raised, as there are budgetary issues around it—but because the issue is important we should return to it in the new year. The approach that is outlined in the clerk's paper will enable us to do justice to the petition.

I would like to propose an amendment to the timetable and suggest that we have an initial discussion on class sizes with Fiona Hyslop on 5 December. That discussion should deal with the policy aspects, because although we might be asking her about the issue in connection with the budget, the policy aspects should be dealt with separately—just as a starter—as a way of showing that we take the petition extremely seriously. I move that proposal.

Does anyone have any further comments or does the committee wish to move to a division?

It is not clear what is being proposed.

Mr Gibson is suggesting that the issue should be covered at the budget evidence-taking session.

No, I am suggesting that it be dealt with under a separate item on the same day, because it relates to policy issues, not the budget.

I am unclear about how we would fit all of that in. I am quite happy to start earlier, but am I right in thinking that we have other witnesses coming that day?

Prior to the evidence-taking session with the minister, we will hear from representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland.

I am perfectly happy to extend the meeting as the deputy convener proposes, but if we decide to do so the clerks will have to have discussions, because the meeting will go well into lunchtime, and potentially beyond, which might affect business in the afternoon. I am not sure whether the deputy convener has discussed the implications with his business manager.

The questions that we ask can be concise—perhaps we all ought to learn how to make them more concise.

The budget process restricts us to dealing with budget matters, but the petition will provide us with material, in terms of statistics, in due course. Given the political prominence of the issue, which is not related only to budget matters, we should take the opportunity to talk to the minister. I would, therefore, like to press my suggestion and recommend that, if need be, there be discussions with the minister and the business managers about extending the meeting.

Are you suggesting that our consideration of the petition should be limited solely to taking evidence from the minister—

No.

So rather than hearing from all of the witnesses who we want to hear from and then talking to the minister, you are suggesting that we hear from the minister first. That is not how matters are normally dealt with. I wonder whether the suggestion relates to an argument at the Parliamentary Bureau yesterday about a parliamentary statement that has been requested, and whether this is an opportunity to have no parliamentary statement on the matter, if the committee—

I have no knowledge of that.

Well, your Minister for Parliamentary Business certainly has knowledge of it, and questions were asked of the clerks and me yesterday.

I am reminded of the phrase "more haste, less speed". The time pressure in the evidence session with the cabinet secretary will not help scrutiny of the petition. I agree with Rob Gibson that class sizes will be a huge issue for a long time to come, therefore I am not persuaded that we should dive straight into it. The budget process demands an intense amount of scrutiny, particularly as, I hope, we will get level 3 data. Surely the paper is sensible—it proposes a more considered timescale for consideration of the petition. I do not understand what would be lost by following it.

I agree. We can make a start and tell ministers that we want to scrutinise the matter, but condensing consideration of it into one session without hearing evidence from other witnesses is probably not the way forward. I support Richard Baker's position.

I would prefer it if we did not have to go to a vote today. We all want to discuss class sizes. I acknowledge Rob Gibson's point that the issue is likely to arise during our consideration of the budget and that we should discuss the policy as well, but it would be difficult to timetable that. The convener's point that we might want to hear from other people is also relevant. The minister deserves to have the opportunity to respond to any other evidence that we take, so the usual practice is probably the best one. I hope that we can agree. The matter is urgent and needs to be discussed, but fitting it into an already crowded timetable is probably not the best way to deal with it.

There are different views but, as Mary Mulligan said, there is no doubt that everyone around the table thinks that the issue is important and wants to devote to it the time that it deserves. There can be no doubt that the Government thinks that class sizes is an important issue, or it would not have made it one of its priorities.

My concern is that if we take evidence on class sizes at our meeting on 5 December, we will be unable to give it the due consideration, attention and scrutiny that it deserves. We have other matters to pursue with the minister at that meeting. As well as taking evidence from COSLA and ADES, we need to have initial discussions on our stage 1 report on the Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Bill. We must be mindful that the committee has to comply with the timetable that the Parliamentary Bureau agreed for the bill. We do not have flexibility on that, so it would be difficult to discuss class sizes at our meeting on 5 December.

I point out that the cabinet secretary is already coming to the committee two weeks in a row, but if she is willing to come back the following week we might have more flexibility in our timetable to allow her to address the issues initially. That compromise might mean that we do not have to move to a division. We all agree that the issue is important, and it would be unhelpful to divide on it.

I hear what you are saying, convener. I point out that I was not suggesting that the cabinet secretary should not come at the end of the process as well—I was amending the suggestion so that we could have some initial thoughts from her on the policy issues.

Convener, I understand the latitude that you apply to discussions on the budget so that they can extend far beyond issues related to the actual figures. That was evident this morning in our discussion on higher education funding, which was separate from what we were really dealing with. Given that, your suggested compromise of asking the minister whether she wants to come to committee on 12 December might be good.

If we are happy with that compromise position, the clerks will have discussions with the minister's office about her ability to join us on either 12 or 19 December, if that is suitable.

Thinking about petitions such as this one coming to committee, I am concerned that we are becoming a victim of our own voracity, considering our heavy work programme. I do not know whether we have built in enough flexibility to address topical issues as they arise. Perhaps we can consider that in future.

It is always difficult for a committee to manage its work programme. We need to be mindful that, although it is important for topical issues to be considered swiftly, the issue in the petition is not likely to go away in the foreseeable future. I am sure that we will have an opportunity to scrutinise the points that are raised in the petition and give them the attention that they deserve.

We will all bear in mind the need for our work programme not to be too overloaded, although I must point out that sometimes our work programme is determined not by us but by the Executive giving us legislation. We are one of the few committees that have legislation to scrutinise.

I think that we have agreed our approach to the petition.