Official Report 163KB pdf
The next item is a discussion on how the committee will handle the Duffner report.
There is a short paper that has arisen from suggestions made by members. We have a limited amount of committee time in which to consider the report because of our commitment to stage 2 of the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) (No 2) Bill. It has been suggested that the committee might appoint some reporters or groups to go and speak to the organisations that would be most affected by the proposed reform of the careers service. The reporters would visit four different areas and get a feel for the situation on the ground. They might report back to the committee at the meeting on 13 February in order to condense the process.
Marilyn Livingstone was the member who made the initial proposal to have reporters. She cannot be here today because she is unwell. I would like the committee to take up the suggestion. It is a method that has worked well in the past. It would allow us to take a closer look at the implications of the Duffner review and to take part in useful discussions with people in different parts of the country.
In our discussion last week there seemed to be general agreement that that was the best approach. We do not have time to take full evidence and, in any case, it would be useful to hear the reaction from those on the coalface. Is there a general agreement that this is how we should deal with the matter?
I am conscious that we are fairly short of members this morning. I wonder whether the others would have an input. I find that the pressure on my diary is absolutely immense. I do not want to be unhelpful as I am interested in this process, but the various pressures on my diary conflict with one another. I do not know how the other members of the committee are placed.
Unfortunately, because the issue must be discussed on 13 February, I do not think that we can carry the paper over.
We might not have to go on a visit. It might be easier to get someone from the Aberdeen careers service, for example, to come to Mohammed. Also, it might not be necessary to involve every member of the committee. We have suggested four areas, but there could be fewer and one member could deal with them.
Annabel Goldie's point is correct; time is constrained. The review is important, however, and we should try to get our examination right. I know that some of the members who are not here today have indicated that they would be willing to be reporters.
As long as we met them on site I would be more than willing to participate. Perhaps I could deal with Fife.
I know that Marilyn Livingstone is anxious to meet the Grampian careers service.
Yes, and I think that that would be a useful discussion. She could organise whether she goes to Aberdeen or people from there come to her.
If we are agreed in principle to deal with the Duffner committee's review of the careers service, the only way in which we can do so is by the method that we are discussing, given the time scale. Shall we agree to proceed on that basis?
Also, I am keen that we get cross-party views on the matter. I will ask Simon Watkins to co-ordinate the volunteers. If we have more than one member dealing with each area, that will be fine: the more members of the committee who are actively involved, the better.
Certainly.
Tomorrow is 1 February, so we have less than two weeks to deal with the matter. Is the committee agreed to proceed in the manner that I have outlined?
On 13 February, we will hear the feedback and address the issues in the Duffner report. It might be useful, Simon, to make sure that every member of the committee gets a copy of the Duffner report and the minister's response before going on their visits.
We will do that.
Before we finish, I want to put on record our gratitude to Duncan McNeil, whose idea it was to come to IBM in Greenock, to IBM and to the members of staff—Simon and the clerks, the official reporters, the sound people and the security staff—who have done an excellent job. Bringing a committee out of the Parliament is a big job and requires a fair deal of planning. On behalf of the committee, I would also like to thank Ian Ritchie for his attendance.
This morning has been exceedingly interesting. I was struck by the reaction of IBM to this committee's connecting with business. I hope that this meeting is the start of a pattern. This has been a meaningful way for the committee to discharge its business.
Absolutely. It also demonstrates that we are willing to go out and listen to what business has to say. That is an important message for the Scottish Parliament to send.
This committee has taken a lead in this kind of activity. Our trip to Inverness was one of the first times that a committee of the Parliament met outside Edinburgh.
I hope that we also will be the first to have an away day after the election.
In North Carolina.
I second that.
That brings us to the end of the formal meeting and there will now be a site visit. Unfortunately, I have to be back in Edinburgh for a meeting at 1 o'clock that I could not get out of.
Meeting closed at 11:24.
Previous
The New Economy