Legacy Paper
I will ask Simon Watkins to introduce the committee's legacy paper, after which I will throw the item open to members for their comments and questions.
The paper summarises the committee's views on the work that it has undertaken over the past four years, although I am aware that not all the current members have been members of the committee for that length of time.
The idea behind the paper is to leave something for a successor committee or committees—depending on the committee structure of the next Parliament—that provides a starting point in two ways. First, the paper suggests items that the committee might want to inquire into and, secondly, it outlines procedures and ways of carrying out business. I am sure that most members feel that, over the past four years, we have learned quite a lot about what does and does not work and about what constitutes the most effective use of the committee's time.
The paper begins by summarising the core of the committee's activity over the past four years, including scrutiny of bills. It then lists potential future inquiry topics, most of which are specific issues that have spun out of other work and that we have not had the time to pursue. Basically, I have prepared a menu or shopping list for a successor committee. Of course, it will be entirely up to a successor committee to choose what it wants to do, but we thought that the list would provide a more helpful starting point than a blank sheet of paper.
The issues in question have emerged under a set of headings. The committee has already examined some of those issues, but, five or six years into the life of the Parliament, there will be an opportunity for a successor committee to return and find out whether any progress has been made. The list in the paper contains short explanations of why particular issues have been highlighted.
Early in its life—and probably before most of the present members had joined—the committee agreed a paper on how to select topics for inquiry, highlighting the various issues that should be taken into account. That subject is covered in section 4 of the legacy paper, which in effect reproduces the paper that was agreed back in 1999. Members might want to find out whether its points are still relevant. However, that paper has probably been helpful to us in selecting particular issues and, if you like, choosing in a positive way not to select others.
In section 5 onwards, the paper considers the committee's procedures and means of operation. That part of the paper is extensive, because the committee has tended to choose more informal ways of operating—for example, by having not entirely formal meetings. Those sections also cover various mechanisms that the committee has used, including case-study visits, away days and larger events such as the business in the chamber event and the lifelong learning convention.
Buried within the paper are several recommendations to the successor committee, one of which is that it should hold an away day very early on. We held one about 18 months into the life of the committee because, before then, we were probably just establishing ourselves. We were the first to have such an event. Although there was some scepticism about whether it would be valuable, the members who participated felt it to be quite useful in setting a medium-term strategy for the committee and in helping us not to be blown off course by subsequent events.
All our critics in the other committees then pursued the strategy.
The Conveners Group will consider whether, after the election, it wants to recommend to the next wave of committees that they should all undertake early away days. We have suggested that a successor committee should consider that question immediately, at its first meeting. It can have an away day early in the process—we did not have that opportunity. That is probably as much as it is worth saying on that issue.
We have tried in the paper to be reasonably fair and to admit that we have not been able to undertake our scrutiny as well in some areas as we have in others. There is a section on the budget, which is the one area in which members have felt unhappy about the ability to get to grips with things. There is also a short section on legislation. The committee has been largely free of legislation, so perhaps we do not have much advice to offer to the successor committee.
Thank you for the paper, which is comprehensive.
David Mundell has now popped out to the Transport and the Environment Committee, but he will be popping back again later. He has a constituency issue to deal with.
I would like to make three general comments to supplement what Simon Watkins said. Two of the issues have been discussed in the Conveners Group, which is now a statutory committee of the Parliament and has been built into standing orders.
First, this committee, particularly in the past couple of years, has suffered from a rapid turnover of members. I am not suggesting that we can expect every member of an 11-strong committee to remain with the committee for four years. However, compared with the first two years, when there was relative stability, there has been a fairly rapid turnover in the past couple of years in all parties. We have not been as bad as some committees, but I have certainly felt at times, particularly during a long inquiry such as the one into lifelong learning, that the turnover was detrimental to the committee's work. I hope that the powers that be, in all the parties, will address that issue in the new session of Parliament. It has certainly been a subject for discussion at the Conveners Group.
My second point emphasises what Simon Watkins said. The paper contains recommendations to our successor committee, but we clearly cannot bind it to what we recommend. The successor committee will ultimately decide its priorities and what recommendations it wants to accept or reject.
Thirdly, although we talk about a successor committee, we perhaps should be talking about successor committees. There is a distinct possibility that the enterprise and lifelong learning functions will no longer be in the same department after the election, so those functions may no longer be covered by the same committee. The paper that we are now considering may therefore go to at least two successor committees instead of just one. That will depend on who the First Minister is after the election and how the Government decides to structure its departments, but it is worth bearing that point in mind.
As there are only three other members here, I shall go round each and every one of you for comments and questions.
The paper is excellent—I did not make any response to Simon Watkins because it seemed to me to encapsulate everything that was relevant. As you said, a balance should be struck between giving a light touch to the successor committee and laying down great tracts of material for it to churn through. I thought that the paper was helpful and there is nothing further that I want to add.
The same goes for me. The paper is really good. I agree with the possible future topics, which are the important things for a successor committee to note. The only thing that I would like to say—and this is not in any way a criticism—is that we have always talked about parity between further and higher education in funding. Would that be covered under the lifelong learning strategy, or should we make specific reference to further education? FE is a big plank of lifelong learning and the paper does not mention it, so it might be worth including a caveat with regard to the lifelong learning strategy. The Executive has made an effort to equalise funding. We are all pleased about that, so perhaps it is worth emphasising. As I read through the paper, I liked the balance between business and the lifelong learning strategy. However, the FE funding situation could be elaborated on.
I am happy to build in that additional emphasis.
The paper mentions the implementation of the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council review, so we should also say that we are interested in considering the continued growth of the FE sector, although I am not suggesting that we give priority to it.
Okay.
I slightly demur. One issue that I have been interested in is the funding of the further education sector. Had we time, I might well have made a decision to consider that further.
We are suggesting that an early inquiry should be into the governance of the further education sector. Perhaps that should be extended to include funding as well. Is that agreeable?
That would be great. That was all that I had to add.
I reiterate what my colleagues said about the paper. It would have been interesting to have had an evaluation of the committee's work, but I do not know who would undertake that.
Last week, the Conveners Group approved a research project—a scoping exercise—to consider the impact of all the committees, particularly on Executive policy.
That would be interesting. I note that the paper refers to reviewing and scrutinising Scottish Executive strategies and the impact of Executive policy. I think that the successor committee will be much more engaged in that type of activity. I understand that, because the committee and Executive were just starting up, there was not enough time properly to evaluate Executive policies. I imagine that our successor committee will be heavily engaged in, for example, reviewing the strategy "A Smart, Successful Scotland: Ambitions for the Enterprise Networks".
I reckon that there might be less scope for the committee to go off in the directions that it wants to, particularly in terms of inquiries. Perhaps the committee's core work should be scrutiny of what the Executive is doing and achieving. I think that committees have a particular role in scrutinising what the Executive does and in criticising that—constructively, of course. That is what I envisage the successor committee doing.
I have to say that I have enjoyed being on this committee. I have been on four or five parliamentary committees and in my view the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee is one of the better ones.
The best one.
I will just throw my tuppenceworth in. I think that the paper is excellent and sums up the almost unanimous view of the committee on our modus operandi and the areas where much work has still to be done. Inevitably, the consequences of the possible introduction of top-up fees in the higher education sector have to be a top priority for the committee. I think that it would be inappropriate for us to tackle that issue this side of the election because it requires thorough discussion and investigation. In any case—I have doubled-checked this—top-up fees require primary legislation south of the border and that is not likely to happen until much later this year, or even next year.
The successor committee will have time to look at the consequences of top-up fees for Scotland. I think that we all agree that the last thing that we want is to place Scottish universities at a competitive disadvantage to those south of the border. We do not want to have to go down the road of putting quotas on Scottish or English students—although there are already quotas on foreign students in most of the universities.
Can you clarify whether the Executive has made any comment on the developments down south? I might have missed that.
No—not that I have seen.
The white paper was published only 17 or 18 minutes ago, so there has been no formal opportunity to comment on it.
It has not been in the formal milieu for comment.
For the committee's information, I have lodged a parliamentary question on the issue, but I do not know whether it will get called.
I have asked to put a supplementary question on the issue during First Minister's question time on Thursday.
I do not know whether my question has been included in First Minister's question time.
It has. Your question is number 3.
Oh, right. Well, I can now say that I have a parliamentary question on the issue. I think that the Executive must say something, for the reasons that the convener gave.
I point out that the Executive hopes to announce its response to the committee's lifelong learning report and, indeed, the results of the Executive's wider review of higher education on 11 February, I think. Is it 11 February?
It is that week, certainly.
Iain Gray has invited committee members to a briefing on the Monday morning. I do not think that it would be easy for most members to get to a briefing in Edinburgh at 8.30 on a Monday morning, so I will speak to the minister to see whether we can rearrange the meeting. However, he has kindly offered to give the committee an informal briefing a couple of days before the formal announcement of his policy, which is helpful.
That is to be welcomed.
Absolutely. We will try to arrange with the minister a more appropriate time for the formal briefing, so that members can get to it. Simon Watkins and I are working on that with Iain Gray. I presume that his statement has to indicate what the Executive intends to do north of the border about top-up fees.
I think that we are all agreed that we endorse the legacy paper—with the one or two amendments that we discussed—and strongly recommend to our successor committee or committees that the paper be taken seriously. I hope that, once a new convener and deputy convener are appointed, they will take the legacy paper as item 1 or 3, as the case may be, on their agenda. I hope that they get the benefit of the four years' experience of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. Marilyn Livingstone and Annabel Goldie have been on the committee since it was formed.
The doyennes.
They have added a great deal to the proceedings. If they are happy with the paper, that is particularly important, because it means that the full, four-year span of experience can be taken into account.
We should congratulate the clerks, because the paper is very good.
Absolutely. It is an excellent paper.
That takes us to 10.22 am. The minister cannot join us for item 2 until 11.30 am, so I will formally suspend the meeting until then. I beg members to come back and bring with them as many of their colleagues as they can to ensure that we have a decent turnout for the minister.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—