Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is reasonable for Sue Webber to mention the possibility of overlap. I listened to Ms Clark’s exchange with members, and I took from it that a cross-party group on Europe could take a more strategic or thematic approach than those taken by cross-party groups on individual countries. It is important that the cross-party group on Europe is aware of that, and I think that it is—that is what I took from the exchange.

That could be beneficial to the Parliament. I would be concerned if the group sought to duplicate or overlap with the work of specific, discrete cross-party groups on individual countries. There seems to be a strategic fit for a more pan-European group, which I think was your line of questioning, convener.

It is right that Sue Webber raises those concerns, but I think that it would, on balance, be right to approve the cross-party group.

My apologies, convener, but this might be the most appropriate time to put this on the record. There has been a pattern of cross-party groups coming to the committee—almost like a conveyor belt—and being approved. It is helpful for the committee if there is a degree of challenge and discussion in relation to the approval of cross-party groups. I want to put that on the record, because I have sat on the committee long enough to know that it seems like a procession of cross-party groups, although there has always been concern over their proliferation in the Parliament. Sue Webber and I might have a different perspective on this particular group, but it does the committee a service to be a bit more robust and challenging on the fit of cross-party groups more generally in the Parliament.

I will leave that there.

I have a brief follow-up question for Mr Mullen. We have spoken about what you thought were negatives in your submission. The paper that we have in front of us shows massive increases in successful learners across a variety of groups—adult returners, disabled learners, black and minority ethnic learners and people from deprived backgrounds—right through the regionalisation process. The figures are striking.

My question is coming, convener.

I get that there are concerns in relation to defending your members’ interests, but you must accept that there must be a strength somewhere within regionalisation, as imperfect as you may find it, for that significant progress to be made across all the groups that we want to succeed. That is why further education is there, of course.

I found EIS-FELA’s submission constructive. I did not find it defensive. I want to put that on the record.

I should also say that we do not have comparable figures for Scotland and England for 2020-21 completion rates.

That is twice that a figure has been put on the record in two weeks, but we do not know whether it is remotely robust.

My substantive question is for Mr Brown. I found your submission really helpful. I was particularly interested in how colleges coped through Covid. I know that time is short, but we should put on record our thanks for the amazing work that is done in colleges. Some of that is reflected in the EIS-FELA evidence, which says that colleges coped incredibly well. There must be some strength in regionalisation that enabled colleges to cope well.

However, of more interest to me is that the picture is inconsistent, and getting that consistency across the regions is key for the committee. There is then a concern about that not happening nationally. How do we get that consistency across the regions and colleges and make sure that it happens nationally?

I ask the question because I absolutely get that you want to defend your members’ interests, but we want you to be a proactive part of improving the sector. To be proactive in improving the sector, you have to identify the positives and work collegiately to push those positives. Is Unison is up for doing that?

Audrey Cumberford, would you like to comment on that?

I will be incredibly brief, because Audrey Cumberford may just have addressed this.

You said that there was a missed opportunity at the point of regionalisation, and there is undoubtedly a tough financial and budgetary outlook for the years ahead, but has regionalisation provided greater resilience and stability in the sector than there would have been had we not undergone it? You mentioned strong foundations. Is there a stability in those that would otherwise not have existed? We are evaluating the success or otherwise of the regionalisation process. Because of regionalisation, is there a foundation that provides greater resilience?

I think you addressed that in your previous reply.