Chamber and committees

Put the kettle on then, Mr Simpson.

With the convener’s indulgence, I will put on the public record some information that is not particularly pertinent to the cross-party group.

Paul McLennan, you mentioned raptor persecution. I am the species champion for the peregrine falcon. I note that it can often be an urban bird as well, because its habitats can include high-rise flats and industrial cranes. Therefore, all of Scotland is covered by parts of your work.

As a city MSP whose constituency is quite far away from the islands, I wondered what interest I might have in relation to the proposed cross-party group. I thought about how vital tourism is for many island communities and how important the idea of sustainable and responsible tourism is. Everyone in Scotland and beyond has a responsibility to be aware of that and to make sure that, when we visit island communities, we are respectful and that our tourism is sustainable. Might the cross-party group consider that at some point in the future?

Following some of the exchanges, I have been inspired to ask a question. I was taken by the inclusivity of your approach to the cross-party group in response to members who want other voices to be represented. You have made it clear that your door is always open, be it to other third-party groups or MSPs, and I commend you for that.

I also commend you for trying to be more efficient, and you have made some pretty important points about streamlining the approach to cross-party groups. I am not involved in it, but I know that there is a cross-party group on disability, and I have been looking at the list of non-MSP members on it. Given some of the considerations that have been floated—they are not concerns as such—it might be worth your while to keep that cross-party group aware of your work. I am not saying that it will necessarily want to work on the same issues, but it has a pretty strong network of groups through which it could disseminate information on the work of your own group. It is just a suggestion, Mr Simpson.

I have a brief question. I should point out that my first ever engagement with cross-party groups in the Parliament was sport related. The first email that I received as an MSP in 2007 was from the late David McLetchie and it related to a cross-party group on golf. There is a long tradition of sporting cross-party groups in the Parliament.

I am interested in the involvement of the School of Hard Knocks in the proposed cross-party group, as I have seen at first hand in my Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn constituency how it has worked with local partners to get not only young people but various sections of society that otherwise would not think about rugby as a sport for them to use it as a way of team building, team bonding, learning skills and even signposting to college for further education opportunities.

If the proposed cross-party group were to receive recognition and do any work in relation to deprived communities and vulnerable groups, I think that a wider range of MSPs would be interested in following that, even if they were not formal members of the group, because the School of Hard Knocks has a strong reputation.

I have followed the conversation this morning, which has been fascinating and very helpful. My question relates to Mr Dornan’s suggestion that reviewing the law on spiking could be challenging and complex. Would there be a wider benefit to reviewing the legislation on spiking, or the lack of it? That might force the Government and wider society to—yet again—review Scotland’s relationship with alcohol, which would involve engagement with women’s groups, youth groups, the licensed sector, Police Scotland and wider society. Irrespective of the complexities, would there be a wider intrinsic value in holding a consultation to see what reviewing the legislation on spiking might look like?

Convener, I think that the line of questioning from you and Willie Rennie is absolutely justified. I draw members’ attention to one line in our papers for today’s meeting. The Government’s policy note says:

“This amendment is intended to be a temporary response to specific circumstances and Ministers intend to revoke it as soon as circumstances allow.”

That is precisely what we need more information and clarity on. If the matter could be dealt with in correspondence, that would be ideal.

Thank you.

Thank you, Margaret. I appreciate that.

I would like to direct my question to Douglas Hutchison. In doing so, I declare an interest with regard to the Educational Institute of Scotland, to which I still give my union dues. I declare that before I mention the EIS survey. I also welcome Douglas Hutchison to his post in Glasgow. He has been in it only three days, and I expect that his post bag is quite voluminous already. Thank you for taking on that task.

The EIS survey found that 65.9 per cent of teachers thought that rooms were well ventilated but 29.2 per cent did not. We are short on time, but I will give one other statistic: 62.8 per cent of teachers knew that the ventilation in their rooms had been checked but 11 per cent did not. I want to ask Douglas whether he is aware of whether education leaders at a local authority level had gone back to the EIS with that survey detail and drilled down, for example, on the 29 per cent who did not think that classrooms were well ventilated or on the 11 per cent who did not know that the ventilation had been checked. That is very important data on a bit of a disconnect between some of the teachers at the coalface, who are EIS members, and some of the good practice that we have heard about from Simon Cameron. Does Douglas have a view on how that data could be used and what discussion there could be with the EIS on doing something positive in relation to that?