Chamber and committees

I made some comments to Mr Beattie earlier in the meeting. I felt a bit guilty about that, because I have a very direct constituency interest in the cross-party group on space being successful, given the employment that the space industry creates and the dynamic in my constituency for the space sector, which is growing. However, I wanted to challenge and push a bit on whether we should approve the cross-party group—not because it is a cross-party group on space, but because there has been a feeling for years, and before the session 6 standards committee was in place, that the committee was a conveyor belt when it came to accepting cross-party group applications and looking at compliance. That is how it has always been. Clearly, that must now stop.

Some new structures need to be put in place. I commend the clerking team for providing this visual aid to let us know what is going on across all the cross-party groups in Parliament. We probably need to build up additional structures around the way that we scrutinise the compliance of cross-party groups. We need to be consistent and systematic in how we approach that, so that no one cross-party group feels that it has been unfairly targeted for lack of compliance.

We need to have a review of how the system is monitored and how cross-party groups that are not compliant are supported to be compliant. We might also need to have some slightly more challenging conversations about whether a group has, in effect, fallen into abeyance and whether the best way forward is for it to limp on—I hate that expression—or whether it is better for MSPs to reconsolidate their efforts and consider the best use of their time.

I did not say in my contribution, but I am very pleased that you did, that most cross-party groups are compliant and meet all the requirements. That might have got a bit lost in my comments, so I am pleased that you put that on the record. I expect that most cross-party groups are compliant because they have exceptional secretariats that support them, which, by and large, are unpaid and are doing sterling work. It is important to recognise that.

I think that the committee is in agreement that we should write to conveners. I do not know whether it would also be appropriate to write to the associated secretariats with the same correspondence. It is a horrible thing to say, convener, but I want to make sure that the secretariats are sighted on these matters at the earliest opportunity, particularly if a cross-party group is not compliant.

I have a general comment, although it might be unfair to Mr Beattie. My last line of questioning was quite important because, before that, although I was getting a picture of a powerful, dynamic and growing industry in Scotland and the UK, which is good news, I was a little unclear about the benefit to Parliament of having the CPG—I could see the benefit for the sector, of course—other than in just helping MSPs to be informed. However, by the end of that exchange, Mr Beattie had outlined some of that.

The Parliament is not very good at auditing whether cross-party groups actually fulfil their aspirations. That observation is not specific to this proposed cross-party group, but it feeds into the discussion that we will have later about cross-party groups more generally, so I want to put that on the record. The cross-party group that we have just discussed had some significant ambition, but, with all cross-party groups, we might have to look a little more carefully at whether they fulfil what they say that they want to achieve when they appear before this committee to seek recognition.

I will follow that up a little. If this group is accepted, it will be the eighth cross-party group of which you are a member. I convene two cross-party groups that have lots of really good purposes. One is that they can connect a sector in a way in which it would not otherwise be connected. Do you feel that the space industry is already well connected as a sector and that it already has good links with government at all levels, whether that is local authorities, the Scottish Government or the UK Government? I ask that question because you mentioned that it would be a “serious deficiency” if we did not have this cross-party group and that, where problems emerge, the group could be a vehicle for tackling some of them. Can you give an example of what those problems are, or is everything tickety-boo at the moment? What are the issues?

I apologise that I used the expression “tickety-boo” in a committee meeting—can we strike that from the record forthwith?

I am glad that I pushed you on the issue, Mr Beattie, because that was the first time that I have heard you describe what emerging issues there could be in the sector that MSPs would want to be sighted on and take forward on a cross-party basis, which are those that relate to clarity of Government policy in Scotland and the UK and the regulatory regime. We are starting to hit on things where there could be a public interest in MSPs pushing matters forward within the Parliament’s cross-party group system. What you have said gives me a lot more certainty about the benefit of this cross-party group, and I thank you for that.

I was talking about your time constraints rather than mine. You are convener of three cross-party groups, and you would become the convener of a fourth. Every potential cross-party group in the future will be asked similar questions—there is nothing specific to you or this cross-party group. It is a significant commitment to be convener of four cross-party groups. Do you feel that you can give it the time that it deserves?

Mr Dey has dared to put on the record in the public domain something that many MSPs have been thinking for some time. That said, some MSPs who have been thinking it for some time might also be guilty, if that is not the wrong expression to use, of lodging motions about someone who wins a contest for baking a cake. Mr Mountain, I can tell that you have never tasted my cake. I will not be the subject of any such motion.

Mr Dey made a serious point, but there can be—there always are—unintended consequences. This Parliament needs to find a way to shine a light on remarkable people, at all levels of society, who do something worthwhile. Such people deserve to be commended, whether that happens in this Parliament or elsewhere.

Such commendation does not always have to come through a conventional motion of the Parliament. I know that some parliamentarians have ideas about various ways in which constituency and regional MSPs could use parliamentary mechanisms to shine a light on the remarkable people in our constituencies who deserve to be recognised. That recognition will not always come through a motion of the Parliament, but there should be some mechanism for it. If we are to review the situation, we must not block opportunities for members of this Parliament to recognise remarkable people, irrespective of whether they have contributed in a substantial way at a regional or national level or in a small or micro way that made a difference locally, in their community. With that in mind, I am keen to look at the issue in more detail and hear the ideas of parliamentarians and others.

If we are to look at motions, we might consider another way in which the nature of motions is changing. When I was first elected to the Parliament in 2007, motions for members’ business debates tended to be consensual. They might be thought provoking and challenging, but they were rarely tribal in nature and they rarely involved playing out entrenched party positions. I feel that, in the past few years, such motions have, at times, set out much more entrenched positions. They have been much more tribal, with some MSPs seeking opportunities to play out entrenched party positions. I do not think that that was ever the intention behind members’ business debates and the motions that are lodged in that regard.

If we are to look at the issue in more detail, we should consider the totality of motions. There are some wonderful members’ business debates; there can be a great dynamic, with a fantastic debate on thought-provoking ideas, among members of all parties. We should not restrict such vibrant debate. However, there is a tendency for members’ business debates to be tribal, which was not the intention behind such debates. We should look at motions and debates in the round.

I will be brief, convener. Mr Rennie was, reasonably, asking about the timescale for the reforms of the qualifications framework, and I understand why. However, I urge you to get the reforms right rather than rush them to meet an artificial deadline.

In making that request, I note that curriculum for excellence was first floated by the last Scottish Executive in 2002 but still had not been implemented when the current Scottish Government came in in 2007. It took until 2010 to implement CFE and until 2014 to get the related qualifications in place. Therefore, I make this appeal to the cabinet secretary: let us get this right for Scottish school children, and let us not rush things. Whatever we implement, we will have to live with it for decades to come. Let us get it right and let us not have artificial deadlines.

I am not sure whether I know precisely how the £26 million will be used as the cash flows through to colleges. It would definitely help if you could provide additional information to the committee, even if that is not available today.

You mentioned the resource spending review. Colleges were taking decisions predicated on a five-year flat-cash settlement at 2022-23 prices all the way through to 2026-27. For 2023-24, we know that the settlement is not flat cash, because an additional £26 million has been provided.

When will the college sector get a revised idea of what finances will look like on a rolling basis for five years henceforth? Colleges are predicating decisions on a five-year expenditure basis. Things such as course changes and alterations in staff provision, whether through redundancies or recruitment, have a lead-in time because they are detailed matters.

Will you say more about how the £26 million will change the next five years under the resource spending review? Can colleges think that, for example, there is a new baseline?

College principals would welcome early clarity on some of that, because they are making business plans with five-year consequences now.

I welcome the additional cash for higher education, and I do not take any pleasure in saying that it was less than that for colleges. It was a 2.5 per cent cash increase for higher education but a 3.8 per cent one for colleges. However, I have mentioned before at the committee that colleges sometimes seem a poor relation to universities in terms of the reimbursement rates that they get for full-time equivalent courses. The figures that we have are that, for colleges, the rate is £5,054 and, for universities, it is £7,558.

I wonder whether that differential between the increases for colleges and universities might be the start of a convergence over a long period to bring the fees more into line. I am conscious that the Scottish Funding Council said that it had to better understand why that difference existed and that there would be different reimbursement rates for different courses. I would like more information on that.

Just in case I do not get back in—