Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, 22 Nov 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 22, 2000

Official Report 204KB pdf

---

Lifelong Learning (Research)

Item 3 is on the commissioning of research into lifelong learning.

There is a biannual process for committees to apply for support to undertake external research support. The next deadline for bids is 24 November, not 29 November as specified in the paper. I apologise for that error.

As the committee has considered doing work on lifelong learning—probably next year—it is proposed that we may want to undertake research similar to that which we undertook for the local economic development services inquiry last year and earlier this year. That research had to be done swiftly, because it was commissioned during the inquiry. The consideration is whether the committee would like to set in train that process now, so that we have results from that research activity when we are early on in our inquiry, rather than right at the end of it. This is not intended to foreshadow any decisions that the committee might want to take about the specifics of its future work programme, or indeed other areas of research that it might want Scottish Parliament information centre colleagues to do in advance of the proposed away day.

You will not be surprised by my reply, convener. I think that we should certainly agree to that proposal. It is the right move. As we found out when conducting our previous inquiry, it is advantageous to have in-depth information timeously.

I have no problem with the proposal in principle, but can Simon Watkins reassure us that it will not prejudice a possible requirement to commission research on our inquiry into the impact of the new economy? I am now pretty hazy about where we have got to on that matter, but I do not know whether research needs were built into that programme.

Most of the research work that is undertaken for the committee is done internally by the SPICe researchers, who have produced material for us on the new economy. That can be organised relatively swiftly compared with external research, which requires a contracting process to be undertaken. The new proposal does not exclude us from any activity of that kind.

It might have an impact if we decide during our inquiry that we need to commission external research.

Not necessarily. The expectation is that we would want to commission other pieces of research internally.

I have no problem with that, but I do not want to prejudice our existing flexibility in relation to an on-going and unconcluded inquiry.

I do not think that agreeing to the proposal would prejudice that flexibility. The other options would still be open to us, which is especially important with regard to the time scale for completing our inquiry into the new economy.

Can Simon Watkins elucidate who would be invited to tender to provide that information? Do we have any influence on the sort of people who might be asked to do the mapping exercise? I am hinting that there may be a little bit of navel gazing by the educational establishments, rather than a wider-ranging umbrella view or helicopter view.

I would probably want to consult colleagues from SPICe about the detailed arrangements. There is generally an open contracting process, in which people are asked to bid; a panel, which may or may not include a committee member, considers the contracts. That would be some way down the road yet, and we would have time to give you more information about the full arrangements, if you want it.

In agreeing to commission that work, would it be appropriate for the committee to discuss whom we would like to carry out the mapping exercise?

That would certainly be possible.

I have a comment on the remit of the research that is to be commissioned, assuming that agreement is obtained from the appropriate bodies. Can it be agreed that that research should be conducted from the perspective of the student? Could it also consider the problem that Nicol Stephen and Sir Stewart Sutherland have both acknowledged—the extent to which people in rural Scotland are at a disadvantage in some cases? Could that be specifically incorporated into the remit of the research?

I am not saying that the remit should not cover rural aspects, but we would want to approve the entire research remit.

I am not suggesting that we would not want to do that, but I am asking specifically for a rural aspect to be incorporated.

It is already after 12 o'clock and we must wind up this part of the meeting. I ask members to agree in principle to the recommendation. At our next meeting, we can go into more detail about the remit and supervision. Will that give us enough time, Simon?

Yes. I propose to distribute details of the intended remit to members as soon as possible.

Doing that on 6 December will give us enough time to do that. Do members agree to that proposal?

Does mapping mean provision, take-up and drop-out? Are those three elements included? If they are not, I suggest that they should be.

The mapping exercise is intended as a parallel to what was undertaken in the local economic services inquiry, which studied the pattern of current arrangements. It is the starting point of the inquiry, covering what exists at the moment and who does what.

I want to know about take-up and drop-out.

I am sure that we can take a note of that and build it in to our requirements. In order to expedite this matter, I suggest that Marilyn Livingstone and I take responsibility for bringing back to the committee a paper that addresses all the issues that have been raised. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting continued in private until 12:47.