Official Report 235KB pdf
Agenda item 3 is consideration of a paper on the Scots language. The paper sets out a number of options, including the commissioning of research. We have two members of the Scottish Parliament information centre here in case anyone has questions for them. I am pleased to welcome Nicki Georghiou and Denis Oag.
We have been discussing the issue for a bit. One of the questions that seems to have arisen is whether the audit would provide useful baseline data from which to carry out a study—I am not quite sure whether I should be looking at the convener or the witnesses.
You are a politician, so it is both ways at once. [Laughter.]
Your question is to SPICe.
Yes. Is the audit likely to provide useful baseline data that could be used to carry out a study into Scots and discrimination in schools? If the data will be useful, it might be worth delaying any study of discrimination until we have that baseline data. If the audit is going in a different direction and it will not provide such data, there is no particular reason to delay. Do we have sufficient data now to identify a series of schools in which to carry out a study? Is there a significant benefit to waiting for the audit?
I have only just this morning had the benefit of looking at the outline of the Government's proposal for the audit of Scots language provision. It does not give me enough detail to say how useful it will be. It is clear that the audit will be quite small because the survey's estimated cost is only £15,000. That is an estimate and it might be more than that. At the moment, I am not aware that we have any base for drawing up a sample for this type of research, so the audit might be useful and it might give us the base for drawing up such a sample for the type of research that the committee might want to commission.
Basically, you are saying that the audit may or may not be beneficial, and that you will not know whether it is until you have a clearer picture. Have you examined whether there are other sources of information that would give you a basis on which to start? I was hoping that we would look at the attitudes of both primary school pupils and teachers.
We have not yet looked into the matter. As we are not familiar with the area, our next step would be to ask experts to identify and scope the issues that must be addressed. The proposed Government audit will provide some background. Although the paper does not make this clear, I imagine that the audit will have to use a definition of the Scots language. It is always useful to build on previous research, rather than to invent new definitions. The benefit of using the audit is that it would allow us to build on work that is about to be undertaken.
Even if the audit provides a useful baseline, you will have to carry out a scoping study.
Yes.
Would it be worth while for us to carry out such a study in parallel with the development of the audit? Without scoping, the audit will not be of any use.
We could conduct a scoping study simultaneously with the audit.
Before we start to reinvent the wheel, can we ask the minister on what basis the Scottish Government will carry out its research? From what has been said, it is obvious that there is no depth to the proposed audit—the intention is simply that something should be done. Given that only a small amount of money has been dedicated to the audit, it may reveal very little and we may not be able to build our investigation on it. However, the audit may be targeted in such a way that its results are useful. Before we commission any research, we need to find out what will be done.
The Government audit will take only a matter of months, so if we wait until its results appear, we will not be deferring the matter for long. It is not a problem for us to wait until the research is completed.
I have a question for Nicki Georghiou and Denis Oag, as they are experts in research. I agree with Marlyn Glen. We will not have much time to do any research before the audit is published in October, given that we will be in recess from July to September. However, you have suggested that the £15,000 that has been allocated by the Government will allow it to look at only a small number of people. Would it be beneficial for us to carry out the other research simultaneously, or would that be reinventing the wheel?
From the Government's outline proposal, it does not seem that the audit will cover discrimination or any of the areas in which we are interested. If we could persuade the Government to include those areas in the research, that would provide us with the best value for money. It would be sensible for us to ask the Government to do that—other committees have persuaded it to carry out research that they require.
Denis Oag has anticipated the suggestion that I was about to make. It would do no harm for us to ask the Government to include in its research the areas that interest us. Rather than doing nothing while the audit is under way, we should ask the Government to include equal opportunities issues within its scope. That will let us know where we are at.
Do members agree that that seems to be a sensible way forward?
Members indicated agreement.
Are we going to ask the Government to carry out a scoping exercise as part of its audit? I would like to think that the Government will do that, but if it does not, for whatever reason, can we ask SPICe to carry out a preliminary exercise?
My difficulty with your suggestion is that our round-table discussions are raising many issues and we have no idea how we will follow them up. We might well decide to commission research on age, carers or women in prison. Such a decision would have budgetary implications and the Conveners Group would have to consider our proposal. It would be premature of us to commit a budget to a matter to which we might not give as great a priority as we give to other matters that are coming up.
What cost is involved in simply carrying out a preparatory scoping exercise?
If we did the work, as I imagine that we would do, there would be no specific cost. Researchers such as Nicki Georghiou would do the usual background work and speak to specialists in the field.
Would such an exercise have to go through the Conveners Group?
No.
I am being reminded about the proper steps that we must take and I think that we are a step ahead of ourselves. The committee would first have to agree to commission research. The options that are currently before the committee are, first, to write to the Government to encourage it to include the discrimination angle in its audit, and, failing that, to wait until October, when we will learn what is highlighted in the audit.
I take the advice of the SPICe experts, because I am not an expert on research. We should write to the Government and say that we want it to include a scoping exercise in its research. We could point out that that would not be difficult, as the experts said. If the Government says that it will not do scoping work, we can reconsider the matter.
From what has been said, I understand that if the Government's reaction is negative, we can ask SPICe to do the exercise without that having an impact on our budget. Is that correct?
That was suggested, but we need to clarify the resource implications for SPICe in any shape or form, for example in hours.
SPICe is here to support the committee—that is our priority. We do such work anyway. The committee research budget would be utilised only if we could not carry out primary research that was requested and an external component was required; otherwise, we would do the work internally.
Can we be clear about the situation? Are you saying that you can carry out work without the committee's formal agreement? Might a member commission you to do work?
We have done work in the past when a convener or a reporter to a committee wanted us to support them with a piece of work that did not involve external research.
I hate to say the words "answer to our prayers", but they spring to mind. The idea is an excellent one. We have the Government audit, but we do not know how good it will be. As Marlyn Glen said, nothing ventured, nothing gained. There is no harm in doing what is suggested. We should write to Linda Fabiani asking her to include the issue of discrimination in the audit. We should also ask her to be timeous in her reply. If she says, "No, I am sorry, but I am not going down that road," we can ask SPICe to do the work that we have discussed, which will not cost any money. The suggestion is an excellent one. I wish it was as easy to get other research done.
I will bring in the clerk to advise us on the implications.
It is worth while for the committee to be clear on whether it wants to formally agree to commission external research. If that is the case, a formal parliamentary procedure has to be followed. The question whether to ask SPICe to do other incidental work that does not involve external research is a separate one.
Clearly, that is what we are saying. We are going for the second option.
Members indicated agreement.
I want us to be clear about what we are asking SPICe to do. The scoping relates to discrimination in terms of primary school pupils and teachers. Do you want to come in on that, Nicki?
Yes. I have had some initial thoughts about the project in thinking about commissioning research. We would need to clarify issues such as the definition of the Scots language. Also, when talking about discrimination, are we talking about direct or indirect discrimination? Those are two different things. We will also have to be careful if researchers are going into schools and speaking to children about discrimination. The judgment whether there is discrimination is not one for the committee to make; it is for the courts to decide. Commissioning the research will be complex.
I suggest that we write to Linda Fabiani, asking her for a timeous reply. In the meantime, Bill Wilson will work with SPICe to come up with exactly what we want to ask SPICe to do in terms of the scoping exercise.
Yes. If Linda Fabiani does not want to make discrimination part of the audit, we can ask SPICe to go ahead with the non-cost scoping exercise.
The question will be put formally to members at another meeting. If the committee is happy, we will go ahead.
Do you mean happy with the scoping?
Yes. You will work with SPICe to try to get the exact remit for the scoping exercise that you are looking for. You will then put the remit to the committee. If the committee is agreeable, we will go forward. Is everyone happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Agenda item 4 was to have been taken in private. However, in the absence of Elaine Smith, the gender reporter, who instigated and compiled the report, I think that we should defer the item. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
Meeting closed at 12:33.
Previous
Carers