Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. I thank the convener for the seamless transition to the next line of questioning.

There has been a bit of chat about whether the bill is needed, but we are scrutinising what we have in front of us. I am very conscious that there is already lots of legislation out there. For example, in 2004, legislation was passed that requires local authorities to put in place additional support needs plans for children. Where other agencies are involved, co-ordinated support plans should be put in place. In 2018, transition care plans were introduced for young people moving from child and adolescent mental health services to adult services.

There is a lot out there, but the bill that is before us will put an obligation on local authorities to identify children and young people who are eligible for a transition plan. How should they do that? The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s submission says that greater clarity is needed in that regard. What are your thoughts? I see that Dr Joshi is nodding his head, so I will take him first.

Dr Joshi, before I bring you in—the convener will like this, because it will help with time—I will mention resources. Perhaps you could refer to that as part of your answer. Dr Stark made the good point that we are not getting it right for all the people who are on our radar and in the system. Although eligibility criteria are important in identifying those who are not getting the services that they should get, that has double resource implications. Meeting the needs of the young people we know about has resource implications, but meeting the needs of the other young people who might have milder but, for their families, profound and important needs has additional resource implications. There is a spectrum of needs, is there not?

The only part of the bill documentation that considers resources is the financial memorandum, which estimates that 4,000 school leavers need to go through the transition process each year. Is that an appropriate way to measure resources in the context of the bill? Could there be a tension between getting it right for the young people who are already on the radar and who need good-quality services during their transition and the other young people whom we do not yet know about?

I apologise again to the convener, because there were a lot of questions in there. Dr Joshi, could you come in first, please?

Thank you.

Resources have been a recurrent theme. I will not take up the cudgels on that, simply because I have a specific line of questioning, but I acknowledge the comments that have been made.

I am interested in the cross-party group, although I have not explored it in any great detail. I should declare an interest in that the West of Scotland Science Park is in my constituency of Maryhill and Springburn, where we have a number of very successful technology companies that are actively involved in the space sector. Therefore, Maryhill has a footprint in space.

I may join this cross-party group if it is afforded recognition, but the time constraints that I am under are such that I would not take on an office-bearer position and I might only come to an occasional meeting that had a particular constituency interest. I understand the time constraints that MSPs are under. You are the convener of three cross-party groups already, and you want to become the convener of a fourth. That is a significant time commitment. Do you feel that you have sufficient time to commit to being convener of four cross-party groups?

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 apologise that I used the expression “tickety-boo” in a committee meeting—can we strike that from the record forthwith?

I am glad that I pushed you on the issue, Mr Beattie, because that was the first time that I have heard you describe what emerging issues there could be in the sector that MSPs would want to be sighted on and take forward on a cross-party basis, which are those that relate to clarity of Government policy in Scotland and the UK and the regulatory regime. We are starting to hit on things where there could be a public interest in MSPs pushing matters forward within the Parliament’s cross-party group system. What you have said gives me a lot more certainty about the benefit of this cross-party group, and I thank you for that.

I was talking about your time constraints rather than mine. You are convener of three cross-party groups, and you would become the convener of a fourth. Every potential cross-party group in the future will be asked similar questions—there is nothing specific to you or this cross-party group. It is a significant commitment to be convener of four cross-party groups. Do you feel that you can give it the time that it deserves?

I made some comments to Mr Beattie earlier in the meeting. I felt a bit guilty about that, because I have a very direct constituency interest in the cross-party group on space being successful, given the employment that the space industry creates and the dynamic in my constituency for the space sector, which is growing. However, I wanted to challenge and push a bit on whether we should approve the cross-party group—not because it is a cross-party group on space, but because there has been a feeling for years, and before the session 6 standards committee was in place, that the committee was a conveyor belt when it came to accepting cross-party group applications and looking at compliance. That is how it has always been. Clearly, that must now stop.

Some new structures need to be put in place. I commend the clerking team for providing this visual aid to let us know what is going on across all the cross-party groups in Parliament. We probably need to build up additional structures around the way that we scrutinise the compliance of cross-party groups. We need to be consistent and systematic in how we approach that, so that no one cross-party group feels that it has been unfairly targeted for lack of compliance.

We need to have a review of how the system is monitored and how cross-party groups that are not compliant are supported to be compliant. We might also need to have some slightly more challenging conversations about whether a group has, in effect, fallen into abeyance and whether the best way forward is for it to limp on—I hate that expression—or whether it is better for MSPs to reconsolidate their efforts and consider the best use of their time.

I did not say in my contribution, but I am very pleased that you did, that most cross-party groups are compliant and meet all the requirements. That might have got a bit lost in my comments, so I am pleased that you put that on the record. I expect that most cross-party groups are compliant because they have exceptional secretariats that support them, which, by and large, are unpaid and are doing sterling work. It is important to recognise that.

I think that the committee is in agreement that we should write to conveners. I do not know whether it would also be appropriate to write to the associated secretariats with the same correspondence. It is a horrible thing to say, convener, but I want to make sure that the secretariats are sighted on these matters at the earliest opportunity, particularly if a cross-party group is not compliant.