Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will be brief. Michael Marra’s suggestion was about embedding the activity in another body of work or another inquiry that the committee might pursue during the parliamentary session. That is what the previous committee agreed to do, and it found the opportunity to do so. Obviously, however, we do not have that opportunity during this session.

“Never say never” is the point that Mr Marra is making, I suppose, but the convener’s point is about not giving a false expectation that things might happen any time soon. I therefore agree that we should close the petition. However, our knowledge of the wider issues that the petitioner would seek to have raised does not disappear with that closure. If there is another inquiry that we can tack those questions on to, we should do so, by all means. Nevertheless, at this stage, rather than having things drag on without being able to fulfil the petitioner’s expectations, I agree that closure is probably the best thing.

That was a really important line of questioning from Councillor Callaghan, as she will be known for the rest of the day.

As the committee’s final contributor, I want to step back and look at some of the evidence that we have received over the past few evidence sessions. Andrea Bradley from the EIS told us that we should look at achievement as much as at attainment, and Jim Thewliss suggested that attainment is too narrow a focus. In that context, we measure what we measure. As a Glasgow MSP, I want to give some data on Glasgow and get Mr Lyons’s reflections on it. The other witnesses can then perhaps come in and flesh out their experience in their own areas.

Mr Lyons, I congratulate you on achieving the goal of a 3 per cent improvement in literacy and numeracy in three years. It is a great achievement. However, there are indicators other than those. What information should we capture routinely across the country as part of the attainment challenge, and what information should we not capture? For example, in Glasgow, 96.3 per cent of school leavers went on to positive destinations. That is a record level for Glasgow, and the figure is above the Scottish average. I should point out that every young person at St Roch’s secondary school, which the committee visited, reached a positive destination. People who live in that area certainly know what deprivation looks like, as I am sure Mr Lyons will agree.

It is also important to put on record that 71 per cent of young people in Glasgow went into higher and further education. In fact, we had record levels of entrants into higher education in Glasgow.

There are two things that we, as politicians, debate, one of which is whether we are addressing the attainment challenge sufficiently. When we look at literacy and numeracy, as crucial as those aspects are, I wonder whether we should step back, say, “Let’s chart this or that, too, to see how successful the attainment challenge has been” and then agree a different dashboard of measures.

I should highlight one final bit of evidence. The teachers from the West Partnership whom we met at St Roch’s secondary school wanted to ensure that we acknowledge, celebrate and champion the excellent achievement that already happens, because sometimes that is lost in the political debate.

In short, what would such a dashboard of success look like? What measures would you like to see in it? Do you have reflections on anything else that I have said? Other witnesses can come in after you respond, Mr Lyons.

It answers my question and a bit more, Mr Lyons, so thank you very much.

I will just put on record that the attainment challenge started in 2015 and PEF started in 2017. Therefore, when I mention positive destinations, I am referring not just to good work that is being done by teachers working with the cohort as they leave school but to work that has been done by teachers over a number of the years for which the attainment challenge has been running. We should not miss that out.

If I do come back, the convener will be upset, because we are running out of time and the other witnesses want to give us the story from their local authorities. Thank you very much, Gerry. That was very helpful.

I am conscious that this might be a question for all four witnesses, but is there anything that you would like to add to a dashboard of achievement that we can monitor over a period of time? I would welcome it if that was addressed in any response.

I hope that this is a helpful contribution. I think that we all agree to keep the petition open, but we are in danger of rehearsing what our discussions might be during our work programme chat. However much work on the issue we deem appropriate, we should reflect on how we can best take it forward. Budget scrutiny would seem an obvious hook to hang it on, but we will all want to reflect on that. We are saying that we should not close the petition, so that we can pick up the cudgels again in our work programme discussions.

Does hybridity have a role to play in encouraging people from underrepresented groups to step forward in order that we increase the number of people who wish to seek election and expand the pool of talent? You said that the issue is about more than hybridity—of course it is—but does hybridity have a role to play in that?

Putting to one side technical issues with hybrid meetings, the dynamics of debate and interventions and all that—Mr Mountain may raise those issues—the opportunities of a hybrid Parliament give flexibility to members, perhaps not by default but where there is a caring need, a long-term condition, a disability or another reason. Are there opportunities to protect members of Parliament who have difficulties with their work-life balance or who have to overcome other barriers?

I will roll my questions together in the interest of time. By definition, such members have overcome the barriers, but some think that the price to pay is too much and leave Parliament, and many other people decide not to stand for election because of the nature of Parliament and the challenges and barriers that they face. They could be someone from a black, Asian and minority ethnic background, a disabled person with a long-term condition or someone juggling family life. Can hybrid Parliaments create opportunities to make our legislatures look a bit more like the societies that we represent, be more diverse and protect members’ work-life balance?

I am working remotely today, which has allowed me to feed my baby and give my son his breakfast. I will be at a constituency regeneration event at lunch time, and this is the one day this week when I will get to have dinner with my family. I do not want to work like that every week, but it gives a work-life balance.

I have overcome barriers. The MSPs and MPs who are in Parliament have already overcome barriers, despite not always getting the work-life balance that we want. I am interested in the people who are not putting themselves forward for election. Are there barriers that a hybrid Parliament could overcome for people from ethnic minority backgrounds, people with disabilities or long-term health conditions, people with young families and those from any other groups?

If I look at the situation from my end, hybrid working supports me, but I had already overcome barriers to get elected in the first place. Could hybrid Parliaments do something to ensure that all our Parliaments look a lot more like the people whom we wish to represent?

That is very helpful.