Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 23 Nov 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 23, 1999

Official Report 289KB pdf

---

Reporters' Remits

The next item on the agenda deals with reporters' remits. Each of the members who are conducting special inquiries has met Gillian Baxendine to discuss remits and support. Fiona McLeod left me a message to say that she was concerned about the support that was available from the Scottish Parliament information centre and in the form of allowances. I will let Gillian say a few words about that.

The reporters' work is part of the committee's work and will, therefore, be resourced as far as possible. The clerks would want and expect to be closely involved with the reporters and to assist as much as they can both in advising on the work and in writing up any reports that are submitted to the committee. Similarly, SPICe will offer additional support to the extent that its resources allow. If it cannot do the research itself, it will suggest others who can. It would be helpful if any requests to SPICe were channelled through the clerks, so that we can weigh them up against the other work that the committee is doing. We are happy to facilitate that discussion.

The reporters' work is work for the committee, so it is covered by the usual rules for funding of committee work. If reporters are planning travel or other expenses, those will need to be cleared through the conveners group, in the same way as other committee expenses. I am happy to discuss that with any of the reporters and with the convener.

Gillian said that it would be useful if requests for support for research and assistance from SPICe were channelled through her. However, I am aware that SPICe will be particularly concerned with issues arising from the bill. If there are any difficulties, they should be relayed to me, because we are trying to make representations, through the conveners committee, to ensure that there is adequate support for committees. As has been said, the work of reporters is part of the committee's work.

We are relatively certain that finance will be available for this year, because we are starting so late, but we will need to keep an eye on that for the future.

I understand that very little money from the budget for reporters and inquiries has been spent, and that it has to be spent by the end of next March. Yesterday I discussed this subject with a couple of people, and the inquiries on which we have agreed would seem to be ideal candidates for resources for facilitators and other forms of support. If members would like further information, as I would, I will endeavour to provide Gillian and the committee with it.

It appears that three of our inquiries will report in March, which is a heavy work load. I would not be unhappy if mine were allowed to run on into April. That would help to kill two birds with one stone.

That is very obliging of you. Thank you.

I am a very helpful person.

I have a small point. It would be useful if reporters were given some advice on the tax implications of the allowances that they might receive. Members of the press have already asked me about the tax implications of some other allowances. Members would benefit from advice, especially if Mike intends to go to Cannes and Los Angeles because there is such a large budget for reporting.

I do not think that we suggested that.

I was thinking of one or the other.

Seriously, if there are tax implications, we need to be aware of them. I do not know whether Gillian has any information on that subject.

The allowances office would advise on that. I do not presume to get involved in such things.

If anybody needs advice or help on that, Gillian or I will contact the allowances office on their behalf.

I believe that Gillian has an update on the rugby.

That is not on today's agenda.

We do not have an update on that just now.

At a previous meeting, we discussed the invitation from the European Forum for Teachers of Religious Education. I would be grateful if some members volunteered to meet the forum.

What I have to say might be more appropriate for next week's agenda. It relates to the letter that has just been copied to us from the Scottish Executive education department. I was surprised that it was circulated in that way.

We have just had a wide-ranging consultation on the education bill and on proposals to reform the General Teaching Council for Scotland. We are waiting for them to be brought together by the Executive in a revised bill. The minister said that he intended to remove the statutory basis of the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee for Teaching Staff in School Education, but he did not say when he would do that, and there has been no public consultation on it.

Now a letter from a Scottish Executive official has been sent to nine organisations, giving them less than two weeks to respond. The letter says that the proposal to abolish the SJNC will be included in the education bill. That is not satisfactory public consultation. Given our discussions about the importance of consultation, I propose that we strongly make our views on that known to the Executive.

I have not had time to look at the matter yet. I will add it to next week's agenda.

We need to discuss the process and lack of consultation rather than the substance.

When will we have the chance to chinwag about the investigation into the national companies before we produce a report? What is the mechanism for deciding what the report will say? How will that impinge on meetings?

It was suggested in our brief discussion at the beginning of this meeting that we should talk about how that will be handled next week. That will be helpful.

You will be aware that we asked for submissions. In light of what Nicola Sturgeon has just said, we have to give people reasonable time in which to respond. That means that we could get written submissions up until next week.

I am just talking about the members having a chinwag. It worries me sometimes that everything is terribly formal and it is difficult to throw ideas around.

We should have a discussion of at least half an hour to three quarters of an hour—I suspect, in private, having given notice—to lay out the main lines of conclusion. Then we will have to see a first, and perhaps a second, draft of those conclusions, some of which are becoming painfully obvious.

As I have already said privately to the convener, it strikes me that a number of organisations, although they are not considered national companies, could offer us some insight into how things might work. For instance, it might be useful to compare the operation and funding of the national companies with that of the National Youth Orchestra for Scotland and the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra, particularly in light of the comment about a possible merger a long time ago.

I am also concerned that, although we are keen to talk about the encouraging work that is being done in education, that might be seen as another source of a budget to make up for a lack in budgets elsewhere. If we are to encourage national companies to undertake more educational work, we need to think about the implications for organisations that already undertake a great deal of educational work, such as the National Youth Orchestra and various theatre workshop companies. Although we might not have time to hear from all those organisations, we could at least ask for written submissions from some of them about their roles and how they operate, so that we can take account of it in our deliberations.

We will need to continue discussion on that. Fiona McLeod mentioned the Scottish Youth Theatre; we can take into account the National Youth Orchestra as well. They might have already put in written submissions.

Whether they have or not, we will have to draw some conclusions about the operation of these companies and about how they should operate in future. We should not become too diffuse on the matter.

This has been a discussion on the operation of the national companies. A number of strands have come out clearly, on which the committee will wish to take a position. The committee will want to spend some time talking through that, so that there is a definite outcome from the inquiry and it is not left in limbo.

Can we agree to meet in private at 9.15 am next Wednesday?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting closed at 12:24.