Chamber and committees

I should apologise for the original question, because, of course, it is not an attainment gap—it is a chasm, and it is getting bigger. The figures in the ACEL report are absolutely scandalous. I will not go over them, but everywhere we look, that chasm is getting wider.

The cabinet secretary would do well to listen to people such as the commission on school reform, which suggests in its report “Playing Catch-Up” that, among other things, we should have flexible additional support and a greater roll-out of free devices. Will she do so?

I agree with the recommendation. However, it has to be said that this is very sloppy drafting practice and should not be happening. We need to get the title right. It is all very well for the Scottish Government to say that it will put something in footnotes, but that means that ordinary members of the public will, frankly, find the regulations very difficult to follow. People should not need legal training to follow regulations, which are coming fast and furious at the moment. Perhaps that is why we are seeing more and more mistakes—it is because legislation is being drawn up at pace.

I am concerned about the checks and balances that have—or have not—been put in place. We just should not see such mistakes. It is probably worth sending a letter to the Scottish Government from the committee to highlight that we are not satisfied that such errors are being made.

I put it to the minister that he might want to look again at how we do fare increases and at the ticketing settlement agreement, and that he perhaps pegs increases to the consumer price index rather than to the retail price index, because we cannot go on like this.

Absolutely. The consultation addresses that point. I encourage Daniel Johnson to take part in it.

I have gone over the time allocated to me—I did not expect to do that. It has been a fascinating debate and I look forward to engaging with the committee.

How refreshing to hear an SNP back bencher say that. Yes, I agree with that.

Presiding Officer, you said at the start—

I completely agree. Mr Kerr could take a lead on that in our own party and perhaps introduce some reforms in our whip’s office to allow more spontaneity. I look forward to that happening.

I wanted to speak today because I will be launching a consultation on a member’s bill in January. One aspect of the bill cuts right across some of the issues that we are discussing today. If the bill gets beyond the consultation stage, it will eventually come to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.

There are several aspects to the bill, but I will discuss just one. I want to replicate the situation in councils: if councillors do not turn up for work or do not do any work for six months, they can be removed as councillors. That is a matter of law, but it is not one that applies to MSPs. It struck me that that is entirely wrong. If someone effectively decides to stop work, they should not be allowed to do that job.

That simple idea occurred to me before the pandemic. Since then, we have changed the way that we work. However, I have proceeded with the bill, and the consultation will deal with some of the issues that we have discussed today. A big question now is what constitutes work. It was quite easy before—we just had to turn up, vote or take part in proceedings here—but now it is not so simple. The consultation paper will raise those questions. I encourage all members who have taken part in today’s debate, since they obviously have a keen interest, to contribute, because I am interested to hear people’s views.

Yes, it is up to six minutes.

I am not on the whip in this debate, which is a rarity. We would not often come across any speaker in this Parliament who is not on the whip. Normally, in my group, Stephen Kerr chooses who gets to speak and who does not. I was not on the list for this debate, so I had to approach the Presiding Officer, and your good office said that I could speak. That does not normally happen. That seems entirely wrong to me. When I saw the topic of the debate, I felt that I had something to contribute. All parties need to look at their practices and allow members in that position to do so.

Just a sec—allow me to make this point at least.

The Presiding Officer mentioned the time limit at the start of my speech, Stephen Kerr mentioned spontaneity and Daniel Johnson mentioned the issue, too. MSPs are very often limited by time. I think that they write out their speeches so that they can fit in with that time. If we were to be more flexible—

Stephen Kerr rose—

Mr Whitfield wanted in first.

That idea is worth looking at, because the more members that contribute, the better. One of the good things about this debate so far is that we have heard a lot of really good contributions. Interventions have been made because people have not felt constrained by time.