Chamber and committees

So, with a fixed-sum budget, should money be taken from universities and given to colleges to ensure equity?

The Scottish Funding Council has made recommendations about how the Glasgow colleges regional board and its three assigned colleges could work together more closely and about how structures could be changed. When Derek Smeall gave evidence to this committee a few weeks ago, he said that the board’s activity is “highly transactional” and “massively duplicates” the work of the Glasgow colleges group. I think that he feels that the colleges are in lockstep in their thinking and that the colleges group provides a much more effective and strategic way of taking forward themed activities in the Glasgow colleges sector.

Does the Government accept the SFC’s recommendations? The view of the three Glasgow college principals is out there. What is the future of the GCRB? There is duplication, albeit that it might be well intentioned. We talked earlier about mergers. Perhaps there would be a cost saving if there were no Glasgow colleges regional board.

Where does the Glasgow colleges group sit in the process? There are representatives of the colleges on the regional board, but it is unclear whether principals are members, although they attend meetings. There is a grey area when it comes to the influence that each college has within the board. How can colleges influence the process?

You said that some of the principals thought that that was a good springboard, but I asked how the Glasgow colleges group was specifically involved in that process. What is their input and how can they influence that discussion?

Yes. I just wanted that helpful clarification.

I am maybe being slightly flippant about a serious and important subject, but there is some new technology involved, which is called pen and paper. If there has to be a trail, heaven forfend that an MSP could not have relevant voting slips to pass to the Presiding Officer as and when they are required. If there are 100 amendments, 100 points of order can add quite a lot of time on to business in an afternoon. It is not for us to decide on that this morning but, sometimes, old technology can work just as well.

I am sorry for prolonging the conversation but, with regard to parental leave, we do not know members’ personal circumstances. Members could become foster carers or adoptive parents for the first time, so would “parental” be a catch-all term for that?

I apologise, convener. Perhaps I did not take my point articulately enough. You said “maternity” and “paternity”, so I wanted to make sure that eligibility covers all forms of family relationships—not just the birth of a child but a situation in which a member becomes a foster carer or adoptive parent for the first time.

In relation to the definition of “illness”, I am fine if the member feels that they have a serious illness; I am just conscious of members’ right to privacy in relation to their health. It could be that a member has a mental health issue or an underlying health condition that, for privacy and dignity reasons, no one else is aware of. It could be a life-threatening or life-shortening condition.

I am a little bit nervous about how we protect members. For example, a mental health condition would not mean that the member would have to stay at home and do nothing. They would still be allowed to try as best they could to get on with their life. There is a challenge with the public perception of how we support members who have a serious illness to get on with their lives as best they can, even if it is understandable that they will not be able to be at their work for a period.

I note that the correspondence that we have says:

“the Bureau was broadly agreed that mirroring statutory parental leave arrangements would be appropriate.”

We have to go beyond that. I could be wrong, but I think that statutory parental leave for fathers is two weeks. There is still a gender bias through inequality in society, but I hope that, in the Parliament, there would be an expectation that fathers should strive as much as possible to be equal partners in parenting their children. Two weeks might just not cut it. That is another example in which someone might want to use their proxy sparingly but, because of family circumstances, they might need to use it.

It is the same for mums. They are not ill; they are a new parent, and new parents are trying to balance everything out. There is a need for flexibility. However, if we are going to put a time period on parental leave, it should not be the statutory parental leave period—not for fathers, anyway.