Chamber and committees

Minister, I do not expect you to comment on City of Glasgow College, but I want to use it briefly as a case study of corporate governance. The Educational Institute of Scotland Further Education Lecturers Association had plans to mitigate the 100 compulsory redundancies that are looming in Glasgow. It told us that the principal described those plans as nebulous and superficial and that they were rejected by the board on 14 June.

The EIS-FELA also told us that the 18 different papers that have been taken forward for the 100 redundancies contain errors and inconsistencies, and we know that scoring exercises have been started to deem who might be made compulsorily redundant, with redundancies potentially coming as early as 28 June. The unions have asked for the process to be delayed.

What reassurance can MSPs in Glasgow—or, indeed, MSPs elsewhere in the country, for their local colleges—be given that, when boards consider proposals from unions or anyone else, they do so fairly, robustly, in detail and prudently? Without casting any aspersions on anyone, we have unions saying that they have not been considered appropriately and robustly, so how can we reassure unions that they have been? What checks and balances exist so that MSPs can reassure wirsels that things are not going awry in the college sector—in corporate governance, in particular?

Finally, will the programme be wholly funded from within the education portfolio, or will Government money outwith that portfolio be deployed to help to meet our ambitions?

Okay. Thank you.

Finally, minister, would it be best practice for colleges going for compulsory redundancies to run that past the SFC even though they do not have to?

I will come back in briefly. I do not think that that is the intent behind Mr Dey’s letter, but I concur with the views of Mr Kerr.

Emma Harper mentioned the chamber desk. The individuals who work in the chamber desk team are not just employees of Parliament—they have built up years of expertise and they will have seen patterns in relation to the content and nature of motions. I would very much appreciate their views, as individual professionals, on how they think things have changed over the years.

I take on board Stephen’s point. I would add that those team members might have views and innovative suggestions—without any intent to restrict their numbers—about how motions could be categorised differently. I am not saying that they should be in the public glare, because they are employees, but, should we return to the matter in the future, it would be quite helpful if we could capture some of their views and expertise.

The issue is for elected representatives to decide on, but I am conscious that we have significant expertise in the Parliament, and those parliamentary colleagues have seen fads in motions come and go, quite frankly, and are very close to how that has played out over many years. If we return to the matter, I would be quite keen to draw on the experience of the people who work diligently for us in the chamber desk team.

I have some brief comments. The analysis is interesting. It shows that there has been a significant increase in such motions up to the previous parliamentary session. The numbers do not appear to be getting higher in this parliamentary session; they may be tailing off a bit. That said, Mr Dey makes a reasonable point.

However, restricting the rights of MSPs to lodge motions of recognition for excellent work by volunteers, charities or organisations in their constituencies may lead to unintended consequences, and I would not want to restrict the opportunities to do that by making any changes to the procedures and protocols for lodging motions.

That said—I think that we had this discussion last time, convener—I get that placing a motion of recognition for a local good cause before the Parliament, and that having equal weight to, say, a motion that urges the Scottish or United Kingdom Government to do something significant in tackling the cost of living crisis or another matter of great public interest, may give rise to an issue about whether there is parity in the approach that the Parliament takes to each type of motion. However, I am not sure that we want to go down the road of a two-tier motion system. That would take a bit more thought.

In the future, we could potentially categorise motions and give them their own pathway in relation to how they are publicised, promoted and recognised by the Parliament, but I do not think that we are there yet. I would be interested in how the rest of this session pans out, and I am open to your views, convener, on how we best take the matter forward.

To be clear, there have been discussions through a common framework between the four nations over the past three years where it was hoped that there would be maximum alignment in relation to labelling, container size and the deposit, but at no point in those three years, despite the hope to get alignment, did the UK Government ever raise any issues about any of those things up until very recently. Is that right?

I will be brief, as Mr Ruskell has made some of the comments that I wanted to make.

Somewhere during our robust scrutiny session, the point about the progress made in working with business got a little bit lost in amongst all the process. Mr Ruskell has put that on record pretty well. Having listened to colleagues and having asked lots of questions, I believe that this matter would benefit from more scrutiny, not less. A fresh set of regulations and a statutory instrument returning in September for scrutiny would be no bad thing for the committee and the Parliament. Supporting this statutory instrument is the way of securing that and of making sure that we do not have a scheme that starts in August—which, after all, would not be possible.

As for what Mr Kerr has just said—and I note that he tried to be conciliatory in his remarks—there have been many opportunities over the past three years for the UK Government to raise its concerns, but it did not do so until the past few weeks. We should not lose sight of that when we look at why we are in this situation. It needs to be put on the record, yet again: the requirement for a further set of regulations and further statutory instruments lies squarely at the door of the UK Government.

That said, I think that the statutory instrument that the committee has to pass is perfectly competent. If I were to be invited back to the committee in September to scrutinise the new set of statutory instruments, I would look forward to it.

Minister, from your evidence so far, it would appear as though the Scottish Government is open to a four-nations approach where, if there were any concerns about the interoperability of the level of deposit, labelling, or the size of the container, those could be worked out and it would be maybe not essential but desirable for there to be that maximum alignment across all four nations.

Has the UK Government had opportunities to raise concerns about what labelling might look like in Scotland, what the size of container might be and what the level of deposit might be? If it has had those opportunities, has it had those opportunities for six months, for the past year or for the past two years? Have those concerns ever been raised with the Scottish Government?

Thank you.