Petitions

PE1046, on class sizes, was referred to us by the Public Petitions Committee. Members have a paper that suggests an approach to the petition. I invite comments.

It is likely that we will question the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning on class sizes when she gives evidence—I cannot imagine that the issue will not be raised—but we will have limited time with her, and there is a range of issues to consider.When Mr Smith brought the petition on behalf of the Educational Institute of Scotland, was he asked for guidance on what"significant reductions in class sizes"means? I am not sure that the petitioner has indicated the position that we are starting from and where he would like us to end up. The clerks might know whether the matter was discussed by the Public Petitions Committee—if they do not know, I am quite happy to read the Official Report of the meeting at which PE1046 was considered.

The clerks advise me that they are not aware of the discussion in the Public Petitions Committee.

I will read the Official Report of the meeting, because although there is general support for a reduction in class sizes there are issues to do with what that means.

I see that Mr Gibson wants to comment, and I will allow him to do so, but first it might be helpful if I respond to members' points.I appreciate that the cabinet secretary will soon give evidence to the committee. Indeed, she will attend meetings in two consecutive weeks: next week she will give evidence on the Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Bill, and the week after she will give evidence on the budget. However, she will give evidence on the budget for about an hour and a half, and although we want to question her thoroughly we do not want the session to be excessive. The cabinet secretary has always tried to stay with the committee as long as possible, and she has never complained about lengthy evidence sessions.Class sizes is a major policy issue and we would not do it justice if we crammed it in with our budget consideration. Further, the committee has already agreed to an approach paper on the budget: we said that we would focus primarily on funding for the HE and FE sectors. Although we have said that there will be an opportunity to ask more general questions, if we move too far away from our agreed focus, some of the witnesses who we have invited to give evidence on the budget—today and next week—will not be as appropriate as they otherwise would have been.I have no problem with people asking the minister some questions about class sizes when she comes before us in December—as Mary Mulligan said, it is highly unlikely that the issue will not be raised, as there are budgetary issues around it—but because the issue is important we should return to it in the new year. The approach that is outlined in the clerk's paper will enable us to do justice to the petition.

Does anyone have any further comments or does the committee wish to move to a division?

Mr Gibson is suggesting that the issue should be covered at the budget evidence-taking session.

I am unclear about how we would fit all of that in. I am quite happy to start earlier, but am I right in thinking that we have other witnesses coming that day?

Prior to the evidence-taking session with the minister, we will hear from representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland.

Are you suggesting that our consideration of the petition should be limited solely to taking evidence from the minister—

So rather than hearing from all of the witnesses who we want to hear from and then talking to the minister, you are suggesting that we hear from the minister first. That is not how matters are normally dealt with. I wonder whether the suggestion relates to an argument at the Parliamentary Bureau yesterday about a parliamentary statement that has been requested, and whether this is an opportunity to have no parliamentary statement on the matter, if the committee—

Well, your Minister for Parliamentary Business certainly has knowledge of it, and questions were asked of the clerks and me yesterday.

I am reminded of the phrase "more haste, less speed". The time pressure in the evidence session with the cabinet secretary will not help scrutiny of the petition. I agree with Rob Gibson that class sizes will be a huge issue for a long time to come, therefore I am not persuaded that we should dive straight into it. The budget process demands an intense amount of scrutiny, particularly as, I hope, we will get level 3 data. Surely the paper is sensible—it proposes a more considered timescale for consideration of the petition. I do not understand what would be lost by following it.

I would prefer it if we did not have to go to a vote today. We all want to discuss class sizes. I acknowledge Rob Gibson's point that the issue is likely to arise during our consideration of the budget and that we should discuss the policy as well, but it would be difficult to timetable that. The convener's point that we might want to hear from other people is also relevant. The minister deserves to have the opportunity to respond to any other evidence that we take, so the usual practice is probably the best one. I hope that we can agree. The matter is urgent and needs to be discussed, but fitting it into an already crowded timetable is probably not the best way to deal with it.

There are different views but, as Mary Mulligan said, there is no doubt that everyone around the table thinks that the issue is important and wants to devote to it the time that it deserves. There can be no doubt that the Government thinks that class sizes is an important issue, or it would not have made it one of its priorities.My concern is that if we take evidence on class sizes at our meeting on 5 December, we will be unable to give it the due consideration, attention and scrutiny that it deserves. We have other matters to pursue with the minister at that meeting. As well as taking evidence from COSLA and ADES, we need to have initial discussions on our stage 1 report on the Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Bill. We must be mindful that the committee has to comply with the timetable that the Parliamentary Bureau agreed for the bill. We do not have flexibility on that, so it would be difficult to discuss class sizes at our meeting on 5 December.I point out that the cabinet secretary is already coming to the committee two weeks in a row, but if she is willing to come back the following week we might have more flexibility in our timetable to allow her to address the issues initially. That compromise might mean that we do not have to move to a division. We all agree that the issue is important, and it would be unhelpful to divide on it.

If we are happy with that compromise position, the clerks will have discussions with the minister's office about her ability to join us on either 12 or 19 December, if that is suitable.

It is always difficult for a committee to manage its work programme. We need to be mindful that, although it is important for topical issues to be considered swiftly, the issue in the petition is not likely to go away in the foreseeable future. I am sure that we will have an opportunity to scrutinise the points that are raised in the petition and give them the attention that they deserve.We will all bear in mind the need for our work programme not to be too overloaded, although I must point out that sometimes our work programme is determined not by us but by the Executive giving us legislation. We are one of the few committees that have legislation to scrutinise.I think that we have agreed our approach to the petition.