Item 2 is consideration of our forward work programme. Members have a paper that summarises some of the issues. I suppose that many suggestions for inquiries could emerge from the discussion that we have just had. We must fit in consideration of the proposed bill on parental involvement in Scottish schools at some point, but there are a number of other themes that we could tackle. It has been pointed out that our remit covers social work as well as educational matters. Do members have thoughts on other work that we could do during the next year or so? There are obviously time limitations, given that we have commitments up until Christmas.
I will throw a thought into the melting pot. Teachers would welcome our having a brief look at the McCrone settlement and how it is working in practice. I spoke at a trade union conference not long ago and got the feeling that there is a groundswell of opinion that favours that.
We have had that on our agenda for a while. The issue is the point at which it would be appropriate to do that work.
I recall from our discussions that the minister recommended that we consider the issue this spring.
There are a number of on-going strands.
It might be useful for us to consider the review of the children's hearings system. We could start off by getting a report on that.
There is likely to be legislation on that at some future point. I am not sure that it is our job to duplicate consultation that the Executive will hold.
I assumed that some of the work on the relevant bill would come our way. We will not be the lead committee, but we will probably be asked to play a part.
Perhaps we should feed into the process the fact that we feel that we ought to have some form of involvement in consideration of the proposed parental involvement bill.
We could always ask for a briefing. The committee might be the lead committee.
I cannot imagine that we will be.
I have an observation on the adoption review. I know that the legal terminology has dominated the news, but the review process is just as much about the kind of support that is provided to children. The review is to address the needs of children who face being placed in an adoptive family. That can become a legal debate, which is a nightmare for everybody.
I also wondered about the linked issue of fostering, which is important, and institutional child care, which falls substantially within our remit.
Protection of children falls within the committee's remit. If an issue to do with children and young people falls within the remit of the Minister for Education and Young people, it falls within the remit of the committee.
We know the extent of failings in relation to the opportunities that people who come out of institutional care are given, for example in education and other areas. It is the single biggest failure of the system.
We have learned a lot and had good sessions when we have taken evidence from individual agencies that are related to our portfolio. We should not lose sight of that. We can have stand-alone sessions within other sessions. I recall that we have not taken evidence from the Scottish Qualifications Authority. It would be helpful to go through who we have not seen. We could tie that in with their annual reports, which would help to give a perspective.
We agreed to bring such reports to the committee. Have we received most of them?
We have received those that have been published, but there will probably be another round of publications. The committee agreed to note such reports when they come out and to decide whether to take evidence on them.
It is more about having a dialogue with the people, rather than studying the annual reports.
As there was with the SQA in the past, there may be a problem with organisations themselves, and we may want to get their take on matters.
That is right.
It might be helpful to get an indication at our away day of when the reports come out, because I have slightly lost track.
I suggest that it is a rolling programme.
That matter is very much on the fringes of our responsibilities, and indeed those of the Scottish Executive, which we are trying to hold accountable. I have a lot of sympathy with the suggestion, but I am not convinced that it is a mainstream matter for the committee to take forward.
I am not saying that we should have a full-blown inquiry. We are also driven by what Parliament said. We should recall the motion that was passed on educational support for children, which is devolved. An aspect of the recent report was about educational provision for children. We could examine that report. I think that South Lanarkshire Council would like to have the opportunity to talk about what it wants to do and what it takes from the report. That would be appropriate.
Are there any views on that?
That suggestion is appropriate. We have a locus because children are being educated at Dungavel. The Children (Scotland) Act 1995 backs that up.
I will take advice from the clerk on the matter in a minute. Are there any other views?
I am not sure about the suggestion, because we cannot influence the outcome. It is not necessarily the best use of our time to hold inquiries—however concerned we are about the issues—when we cannot influence the outcome.
Children's hearings are on the fringe of the procedural aspects—
Yes—there is also the justice aspect.
That is significant. I have an uneasy conscience about such matters and whether society could do better in respect of numbers and so on.
I am not sure whether the issue that I want to raise is within our remit, although part of it is. I would like to consider what we are doing to address inequalities in education, particularly at the point at which people leave the school system and go into further and higher education. I do not know whether we should go as far as a full inquiry, but the issue involves the wider access agenda and is not only about inequalities—which we are clearly doing things to try to address—but about fairness, qualifications and the different kinds of institution that are involved. The issue is half covered by the Education Committee and half covered by the Enterprise and Culture Committee—perhaps the latter committee covers the whole issue.
It probably does.
That committee probably does cover the whole issue, which is a difficulty and the reason that I am not sure whether we can consider it. There are difficulties as a result of the division in our responsibilities and the division in society in general. I have absolutely no doubt that the universities used the exam system, and highers in particular, as their gatekeeper in the past. Therefore, much of what has happened in the upper part of secondary schools has been shaped not by pupils' needs, but by the needs or wishes of the higher and further education institutions, although that happens less than it used to. The schools have become grading mechanisms, as it were.
Surely the broader issue is the appropriateness or otherwise of particular exams and qualifications.
Exactly. In recent years, the nature of exams and grades has changed. I do not want to go into the old question of whether exams are becoming easier and so on, but it is a little bit about that. For example, this year there was quite a lot of fall-out—and this is at the top end of the spectrum—about young people getting into medical school. There were far more applicants for medical school in Scotland and thus far more disappointed applicants. We are talking about high-achieving young people being left with a sense of frustration at worst and of failure at best. That is not a particularly positive message to give to people who are leaving school and setting out on their adult life, and is avoidable. Society is building up expectations among certain people about what they need to do, what they can achieve and what is open to them and then slamming the door on them, which is a painful lesson for anybody.
There is also the issue that half of all university students seem to end up in non-graduate jobs, if the information that I have heard is right.
I do not know whether that is true or not. We recognise that a graduate education will open the door to better earnings and a more prosperous life on average—quite considerably so—although I do not know what kind of job that would entail. There is an issue for education, for schools and particularly for the exam system. As I said, I do not know whether I would like there to be an inquiry, but the issue niggles away at me. There are implications for equality. We are supposedly continually improving the system, but we are not always narrowing the achievement gap.
Given that there are limited opportunities for placement in certain schools that people want their children to attend, whatever the system, I am not persuaded that major improvements can be made.
The matter is as tortuous as the allocation of houses.
I was thinking exactly the same thing.
The committee's work is driven as much by proposed legislation as it is by anything else, but our core concern is how we maximise opportunities in schools, whether we are talking about pre-five, primary or secondary education. Although I understand that there are concerns about Dungavel, I do not know whether that should be our priority, given that the committee has other, pressing priorities. That is not to minimise the concern that members have about children and families who are in Dungavel. We should certainly keep a monitoring brief on the matter, but I have doubts about whether we should make it the subject of an inquiry.
I agree with Frank McAveety that there is no case for a wholesale inquiry into what is happening at Dungavel. However, HMIE ought to be allowed to visit the institution. Is it not somewhat anomalous that HMIE can investigate the education of children anywhere in Scotland, but cannot do so in Dungavel, because that institution is the responsibility of the Home Office? That point could be settled.
HMIE inspected Dungavel at the request of HM chief inspector of prisons for England and Wales.
HMIE has inspected Dungavel, then.
I do not suggest that we have a full inquiry. Frank McAveety said that we should monitor the situation, which accords with the committee's role and responsibilities and the terms of the motion to which the Parliament agreed. The most recent report of HM chief inspector of prisons for England and Wales made specific recommendations about South Lanarkshire Council, which we can consider.
Before we go any further, I would like to get the clerk's take on whether it would be competent for the committee to undertake work on the matter
If I may, I will write to members on that point. Whereas, in a sense, the Parliament can debate any matter, the committees are required to examine only matters that fall within their remits. The issue is the definition of the committee's remit. As the committees' remits are drawn to cover devolved, not reserved, issues, the debate is the extent to which the issue is reserved or devolved. Lord James may have touched on that when he raised the point about HMIE visits.
That is the route.
If members do not mind, I will not give a response now; I would rather write to you on the issue.
We are trying to carry out a preliminary trawl of issues so that we can discuss the matter further and arrive at conclusions during our proposed away day, if members are happy with that arrangement.
Our report on the recommendations in "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright" came out about a year ago. At some point, we should ask the Executive for a further update on its progress on our recommendations.
The thought of returning to the subject of disclosures fills me with huge enthusiasm.
We could probably get the update by letter—we would not need an evidence session.
The issue is mentioned in the forward work programme. I presume that we will have updates six monthly.
Yes, the issue is covered in the work programme.
On that issue, Kathleen Marshall, Scotland's commissioner for children and young people, has made interesting points about children who live in drug and alcohol-misusing families. As part of our work on the protection of children, could we get Kathleen Marshall along to discuss her views and ideas about protecting children and families and working with extended families?
I have two points on that. First, I have taken the liberty of inviting Kathleen Marshall to give a lecture, as she did last year, on what I hope will be a controversial subject of her choice. I have the idea that that might be an annual event, if members think that that is okay. Whether that takes place is obviously a matter for Kathleen. I had a preliminary discussion with her about the issue at the opening of her office. I hope that we can do something in that connection.
I am not sure.
We can ask her to give evidence on particular themes in the report.
Only two years remain of this session of Parliament, so we need to get a handle on the proposed legislation that is likely to come our way. We must ensure that we are not stopped from doing inquiries because we are bogged down in legislation. However, I suspect that, because of the adoption review, the children's hearings review and other issues that might arise, the final year of the session could involve a lot of legislative work. Therefore, we must be focused and ensure that we maximise our inquiries in the coming year. During our away day, we should try to get a feel for what we want to do. We have a great range of suggestions, but we have limited time.
Absolutely. We are trying to get the menu at the moment, after which we will take the matter from there.
It would be helpful if we had relatively early clarification on whether the committee visits will be in week 1 or week 2 of the summer recess. I know that the visits are incredibly difficult to set up, but if the clerks could e-mail us when they have a sense of which week they will be, that would be helpful.
The devolved school management issue is, in a way, associated with the McCrone deal.
Yes. There are associated issues about the faculty system.
We touched on that with the unions in discussing principal teachers, about which concerns were raised at the time of the McCrone deal. I have called on the minister to review the implementation of McCrone. Obviously, that is not a critique of whether McCrone is successful. We could carry out a review, although I think that the Auditor General for Scotland is doing some work in that regard.
There are reviews of different sorts.
Perhaps we could get some information on what other reviews are taking place. The variety of methods of implementation by different local authorities is causing concern.
We should not lose entirely the possibility of having a reporter on some issues, if that is a way of covering an issue quickly, or of having a single evidence session on an issue if we want to get a feel for it, rather than carrying out a full inquiry.
What day of the week is that?
It is a Wednesday. Will we have a 100 per cent turnout?
Good stuff.
Meeting closed at 11:12.
Previous
Pupil Motivation Inquiry