Seòmar agus comataidhean

That helpful answer still acknowledges the funding gap between universities and colleges. I am not trying to create division; I am merely mirroring the comments that we heard from college principals—I think that that is reasonable as part of our inquiry and our overall budget scrutiny in relation to the sector. Karen, is the narrowing of the gap deliberate? Will the end point be parity of funding?

It is appropriate to ask this question now, because Mr Smeall has mentioned community involvement. One of the key aspects of regionalisation is about not throwing the baby out with the bath water; it is about making sure that colleges remain anchored in their communities despite the economies of scale and the greater pull and reach that regionalisation brings.

Those who are least likely to apply to college are most likely to get involved in the type of very local community activity that colleges might offer, which shut down completely during Covid. How is that going just now? Perhaps you can say a bit more about the importance of the work in communities to get those who are least likely to apply to college to do so in the first place? I am thinking of the pre-employability and pre-training work that colleges do so well. How is that faring now, and what are the challenges?

That is helpful. It is important to put on the record the high cost but high reward in this funding climate.

Can I come back in, convener?

Yes, and it is to Mr Smeall. I was going to explore duplication, but Mr Dey has done that amply. In your answer to Mr Dey, I think that you talked about the Glasgow colleges group. Is there a distinction between the Glasgow colleges group and the Glasgow Colleges Regional Board? I was looking through Janie McCusker’s submission on behalf of all the Glasgow colleges, and there are mixed views on whether that additional layer is required or is duplication. Is there a difference between the Glasgow colleges group and the regional board? What are your thoughts on the mixed views on the regional board?

That is helpful.

I have a couple of other questions. First, do you anticipate that, if we were to look at the cross-party group this time next year, we would see more non-MSP members than Connect? You can address that along with my next question.

You mentioned that opportunities for families to engage might be lacking in the Parliament’s cross-party groups, and I note that you mentioned the cross-party group on children and young people. I looked at the minute of its most recent meeting, which was attended by YouthLink Scotland; the group looked at its pandemic impact study. At that meeting were Families Outside and Parenting Across Scotland. That is an example of parents’ groups being able to directly engage with a cross-party group, specifically on matters of Covid, which you have mentioned as being one of the subjects in which you are interested.

I did not see Connect listed in that minute. Perhaps I have got that wrong. Has Connect tried to join that cross-party group in order to put into play its experience and its network? That would avoid duplication and could enhance that cross-party group. Have you spoken to that cross-party group? It seems a really obvious vehicle for raising all the issues that you have listed in your application form.

When it comes to that area, there is genuinely a gap in the Parliament’s cross-party groups. There is a strong case to be made.

I felt a little guilty, convener, about the comments that I made to Michael Marra, but I was trying to make the point that we need to carefully scrutinise each and every proposal for a cross-party group that comes before us. Michael Marra did amply well in demonstrating that there is a need. Asking certain questions in a certain way does not mean that a member does not support the intention of a cross-party group.

Maybe it was a bit unfortunate that the witnesses came today to propose their cross-party groups. I reflect on the fact that the Parliament and previous incarnations of the committee have taken a permissive view to cross-party groups: “If you form them, we shall grant them, and they shall happen irrespective of whether there are enough MSPs to make them meaningful.” That is not a reflection on the two witnesses from whom we heard today, who, I am sure, will do a sterling job with those cross-party groups.

There is a gap because of Covid and because of the significant education reforms. The cross-party group will do a real service to the Parliament—I may even join it myself, convener. However, it is important that, whoever comes to the committee to propose a cross-party group, we scrutinise the proposal carefully.

I do not doubt the importance of the subject or the good will and public interest involved, but we are going to get to a stage at which there are more cross-party groups than there are back-bench MSPs in the Parliament. There is an onus on us to make sure that there is no duplication. I am therefore concerned.

I looked at Connect’s website, and my child’s parent council is listed there. I am not sure whether the website just lists all the parent councils in Scotland or whether individual parent councils have a voice. I am unsure what Connect’s involvement has been with the other cross-party group. From its website, it is clear that it is a worthwhile and important organisation—I cast no doubt on that. However—this is not directed at Mr Marra’s proposed cross-party group, convener—I use this public forum to signpost to other MSPs that perhaps we need to find out about demand before we bring forward for approval proposals for cross-party groups. That is not specific to your proposed cross-party group, Mr Marra; there is a real frustration among committee members. I will bring you back in to reflect on those points.

I cannot deny the significance and importance of making sure that parents, families and communities have a direct voice in this place. Clearly, Connect is a strong, valuable and worthwhile vehicle for making that happen, and I absolutely agree with you that that is the intention of the proposed cross-party group. However, as you can see, there are tensions about how cross-party groups operate more generally across the Parliament. Will you reflect on the idea of gauging demand and of maybe liaising more carefully with other cross-party groups before bringing a proposal for a cross-party group to the committee?

I feel as though I have been both good cop and bad cop in the one meeting. I acknowledge that Meghan Gallacher, who is listed as being on the proposed cross-party group, is also the co-convener of the cross-party group on children and young people. I am sure that that will lead to some strong partnership working, and there may be acknowledgement that there is a gap. However, it was not for me to say that; it was for me to ask the question and for Mr Marra to make the case that there is a gap.

We both sit on the Education, Children and Young People Committee. Given the significant changes that there will be to Scotland’s education system—whether in assessment, in the senior phase within schools or in the Scottish Qualifications Authority—and given the key role of parents and families, it is important that parents’ voices are heard. What priority would you give to those on-going changes in the work of the cross-party group, should it be approved?

Mr Marra, thank you for coming along to explain the purpose of the proposed cross-party group and to seek approval for it. I have some potential concerns. I emphasise the word “potential” but I want to scrutinise them.

I am always concerned when I see only one non-MSP member on a cross-party group. I get that Connect is an umbrella organisation that engages with others, but I am keen to see individual groups directly involved in cross-party groups rather than all being filtered through one body. I need to get to know Connect better, so I make no judgment on it. I am sure that it is a wonderful organisation, but will you tell me a little bit more about it and how it ensures that it reflects the views of a massive range of groups and families across Scotland?