Seòmar agus comataidhean

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—

We are doing budget scrutiny. Before Christmas, I met the principal of Glasgow Kelvin College to look at the really challenging realities of the then budget allocation for the college sector. I also met the Educational Institute of Scotland locally. I am in no doubt that those absolute challenges will mean fewer staff and fewer classes. I grant that those meetings took place before the welcome addition of £26 million to the budget, which provides a small real-terms uplift, but I understand that there will still be fewer staff and fewer classes, which will be reflected across the sector.

I do not have a pot of cash to make things better, but we must be realistic about the reality out there. Has any analysis been done of the impact on the sector of the position before and after the £26 million was allocated?

It is really important, though, convener.

We should note that, in 2017-18, 26 per cent of university entrants came through a further education route, as did 40 per cent of undergraduates from the 20 per cent most deprived areas under the Scottish index of multiple deprivation who started university in the past year. What we invest in colleges matters for our universities; so, surely, moving towards parity of funding is incredibly important.

Deputy First Minister, I welcome what you said in your answers to Graeme Dey and the deputy convener that we have gone from 26 applications being considered each month to 66, and that figure might go up with the additional caseworkers. I hate the expression “throughput” but that is what it is, if you like. However, the individual experience is the length of wait for each individual, so what is the average length of time that someone has to wait to have a determination made, and what do you anticipate the average length of wait will become as the new caseworkers get up to speed? That will allow us to monitor the individual experience rather the number of cases going through the system, and that would be helpful to the committee.

I accept all of that, Deputy First Minister, because there are such individualised cases. Is there any way in which that could be monitored? I accept that each individual case has to be looked at empathetically and that applications can be at different stages when they are made, but it would still be good to have some form of monitoring of the efficacy of the case handling system for those individuals as they go through the process. I know that raw data might not be relevant, but will you keep that under scrutiny, anyway?

I have a particular interest in this cross-party group—that does not always happen when members come here to seek approval for CPGs—because it makes me think about the most obvious ice sports club in Glasgow: the Glasgow Clan. I have not yet been able to go and see it, which is probably my loss. Ahead of today’s meeting, I thought I would check what it is doing, and I saw that it has “kids for a quid” offers to encourage young people to watch the sport. Anyone who has visited Braehead cannot help but be enthused by the number of families who go to see ice hockey as a spectator sport. It is a really family-friendly occasion.

This proposal for a cross-party group has got me thinking about the link between spectator sports, entertainment and participation. I am wondering whether that is something that the group might consider, as we often talk about sporting pathways, and the first way to get young people involved is to get them watching a real spectacle, because they then want a go themselves.

I am conscious that the aims of the proposed cross-party group include debating the accessibility of existing infrastructure and promoting existing clubs. I would imagine that there are geographical inequalities in relation to some of the assets, so I wonder about the relationship between growing the spectator sport, the sporting pathways for participation and affordability. I do not expect to get answers on that from you, Mr Kerr, but I am interested in that connectivity, and the proposal has made me think about the situation in north Glasgow in particular. I know that lots of people I represent there go to watch Glasgow Clan, but I have never asked myself the question: what is the sporting pathway there for young people? Is that something that the cross-party group might investigate?

I will give a couple of specific examples, which is important, because the idea of what a national care service might look like for children can appear a bit vague.

I have been campaigning for a number of years on kinship care to ensure that children and young people who would otherwise be looked after in a residential setting get the support with family members and loved ones that they require. There are currently 4,456 young people in formal kinship relationships in Scotland who get kinship care allowances, but those allowances vary dramatically across Scotland. For example, for children between five and 10, a kinship carer might get £96 a week or £200 a week, or anything in between, across 32 local authorities.

Is the expectation that that would be standardised under a national care service? If so, can you give an assurance that it would be standardised at the higher end and not the bottom end of the scale? Where there is a financial gap in relation to what local authorities are currently putting into the system, who will fund that gap?