���˿���

Minister, it is reasonable to assert that the financial position of the Scottish Government has been dramatically eroded since the manifesto commitments were made, due to inflation, cost pressures in education and UK Government austerity measures. That is a strong argument for you, as the minister. However, the committee still has to scrutinise the potential budget lines irrespective of all that. The Welsh scheme is costing £65 million over four years, which means £16.25 million per annum, for a fully rolled-out scheme. Can you share with us any indicative figures, whether the Government pays that in full or in part, for the pilot?

It would be helpful if we could have an idea of those figures as soon as possible. We understand that figures move and that projections can change, but having early sight of them would be helpful to the committee.

The committee also has to make choices because of cost pressures and demands. If the Scottish Government were to come forward and say, “We have found £25 million per annum to run this scheme,” committee members would still have to decide whether that was the best way to spend that money in the sector, given the cuts to college budgets and other current cost pressures. The committee has to contend with moving parts on budgetary concerns.

Are you sensitive to the fact that any spend on that manifesto commitment might have an impact on other commitments that we have made in the education portfolio? How would you manage such conflict?

Will you say more about that?

I am keen to move away from talking about City of Glasgow College, because, although I am sure that constituents will be listening very carefully to our exchange on City of Glasgow College, there are colleges across the country. I have no doubt that some of them are performing very well and have close relationships with their union colleagues, but that is not so much the case for other colleges. I am also sure that some will robustly challenge college principals, and that others might not do so much of that. How do we get consistency of approach to scrutiny? If we were talking about issues related to housing associations, there would be the ability to appoint individuals to boards to support oversight.

Is there anything to prevent colleges from going to the SFC and asking it to check it over even though they do not have a legal duty to? Would that be best practice?

On that, will you take account of the fact that those who do not go to college or university are the least likely to undertake overseas travel? Those who go to university are the most likely, and those in colleges are somewhere in the middle. Will that be taken into account in any pilot?

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 ���˿��� in Glasgow—or, indeed, ���˿��� 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 ���˿��� can reassure wirsels that things are not going awry in the college sector—in corporate governance, in particular?

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 ���˿��� 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.

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.

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.