Education Committee, 26 Jan 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Official Report 252KB pdf

---

Non-departmental Public Bodies

Agenda item 2 is on the reports of various non-departmental public bodies. Members will recall that we asked for those reports to be put before the committee. The reports are laid before Parliament in various forms and at various times, but we are trying to keep a more comprehensive eye on them. In the first instance, we need simply to note the reports, but we might want to consider whether it would be worth while to examine any of them more closely and to ask the agencies for more detail on their work. We should consider whether there are issues that are relevant to our work.

We heard today from the social work services inspectorate, so we have had a shot at that one. The Gaelic Media Service is relevant to our report on the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill, and I thought that the General Teaching Council for Scotland report was the most interesting of the other reports that we received. We have had quite a lot of dealings with HMIE. I suggest that we should consider either the Gaelic Media Service report or the GTC report, depending on what members think. Do members have views?

I notice that there is variability between the reports and that Learning and Teaching Scotland supplied its accounts. It would be interesting to find out from the clerks the implications of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill in relation to the organisations and their constitutional set-up. It might be worth while for us to be aware of that.

The GTCS report, in particular, gives a clear indication of its work. In pursuing the accountability of important organisations in the development of educational policy and practice, we should give those organisations the opportunity to state their views and opinions to the Parliament and we should have the opportunity to question them. I suspect that we will want to consult the organisations anyway during our inquiry on pupil motivation. If we invite them as part of that inquiry—

Sorry—are you talking about the GTC?

I mean both the GTCS and Learning and Teaching Scotland. If we consult both bodies during our inquiry, we could use part of the session to ask for their views on their progress during the year. That would be an effective way to use their time and it would give us an opportunity to find out more about what they do: their contributions, challenges and opportunities.

I agree that Learning and Teaching Scotland is relevant to our inquiry on pupil motivation, but the work of the GTCS is slightly broader and it might not fit into that.

I agree that we should invite Learning and Teaching Scotland. We should invite HMIE for the same reason; it will be able to give us a good overview of the progress that it is making, which is relevant, given what we have just heard from the social work services inspectorate about working together. There are some matters in which we are all interested—looked-after children, for example—and we could probe those a bit further with HMIE.

It depends on the context in which we want to see people. I agree with Fiona Hyslop's suggestion that Learning and Teaching Scotland should be consulted in relation to our inquiry. To a certain extent, it is more useful to get information in the context of an inquiry than to get information on its own and then not know what to do with it.

The Gaelic Media Service report is interesting, but perhaps we should have spoken to that organisation before we compiled our stage 1 report on the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill rather than now. It is almost too late in the passage of the bill to get the most out of that investigation.

On the GTCS, it might be worth while to examine issues such as teacher qualifications at some point, although not necessarily straight away. That would include, for example, the fact that people are now expected to have studied a subject at university for three years before they can teach it at any level in schools. Is that really appropriate?

We will begin our pupil motivation inquiry on 23 February. At the moment, we plan to have a relatively short meeting to consider a summary of evidence and to discuss visits. However, we should see most of the bodies at some point, in the interest of accountability, and if we are minded to interview one of them in relation either to the pupil motivation inquiry or to more general things, the meeting on 23 February might be a reasonable time to do that.

I echo Elaine Murray's point. When we take evidence, it is important that we are focused. We definitely plan to hear from the organisations at some point. I support those who said that the GTCS should come in, not least because we have not heard its views on the question of teacher supply in relation to the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill. As it happens, Matthew MacIver, who is the chief executive of the GTCS, is the author of one of the textbooks on Gaelic-medium education and I am sure that he will be able to speak to us about the role of the GTCS in supplying Gaelic-medium education teachers.

I note that the GTCS has a working group on the problem of indiscipline in schools, which has been the subject of recent publicity. That might be an interesting aspect as well. I take the point about focus, but on the other hand it seems to me that there are a number of reasonably clear themes in the GTCS report that we might want to take up. That will form a useful introduction to both the pupil motivation inquiry and the more general issues, including budgetary issues, that we have considered. I am beginning to detect agreement that it would be worth while to invite witnesses from the GTCS, and I suggest that we invite them to come on 23 February. I am not so bothered about whether we do so as part of the inquiry.

I think that there was also some support for inviting Learning and Teaching Scotland.

Can we ask whether it has a report rather than just its accounts?

Yes. I think that we need something a bit better than that; I am sure that it will be able to provide something else. The new chief executive has been in post for around 18 months now and should be able to do something for us. There would be more of a focus on the pupil motivation inquiry.

I think that we probably agree that we could leave the other bodies this year but come back to them. Rosemary Byrne mentioned HMIE, but we have had quite a lot of interplay with HMIE. In any event, that organisation might well have things to say to us as one of our witnesses on pupil motivation. We can discuss that as part of our forward plan.

I support what the convener said about the GTCS and Learning and Teaching Scotland. The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill provides a theme of encouragement for Gaelic this year and at least four of the organisations that are listed on our agenda are relevant to the development of Gaelic. As Ken Macintosh suggested, the GTCS deals with teacher supply. We should clarify how Learning and Teaching Scotland will work with Bòrd na Gàidhlig to support the learning of Gaelic in all areas. It would be interesting to know how the Scottish Qualifications Authority intends to develop Gaelic qualifications to respond to the new and varying language needs that will obtain as a result of the bill. It would also be interesting to hear from the Gaelic Media Service on the possibility of having a dedicated Gaelic television channel or having more Gaelic programmes at peak viewing times.

Might it be possible to ask those four organisations for written evidence that would then enable us to form a view on whether one of them should be asked to come in and discuss matters with us?

Are you talking about Gaelic in particular?

Yes—it would be relevant to the bill.

Did we take evidence from any of those bodies in our stage 1 inquiry? I do not think that we heard from the Gaelic Media Service.

My point is that if the bodies sent in brief written evidence on this theme, the committee could then decide whether to seek further evidence.

In general terms, getting such evidence would clearly be helpful to our stage 2 consideration—and the stage 1 debate that will come before that. Perhaps because broadcasting has not been our central concern, we have felt that Gaelic broadcasting has not had as much attention as it might have had in the evidence that we have received.

I doubt whether we would hear evidence from the Gaelic Media Service; I think that we have been through the exercise. However, do members agree that we should ask for written evidence on the Gaelic aspects?

Members indicated agreement.

We will ask for written evidence on the Gaelic issues from the bodies that we have mentioned. We will work out a format for the GTCS and Learning and Teaching Scotland so that they can give us some input—probably on 23 February. As I said, we will try to come back to some of the other bodies in future years, and see whether we can get through them all.