Thank you, convener. I will go for the easy point first.
I agree with what has been said about cross-party groups. There are far too many of them: some could be joined up and some, in my opinion, should not be there at all. However, that is not our problem in this inquiry, as cross-party groups meet in MSPs’ free time. Our problem is parliamentary business, and a change to cross-party groups will not have an impact on that one way or the other. Something should be done about the issue of cross-party groups, but that does not impact on us.
If all—or most—of us agree that we do not have enough MSPs in the Parliament, particularly given that new business is about to arrive on our desks, it is our responsibility to put that issue on the agenda. Just because the public and the press will more than likely criticise us for raising it, that does not mean that it is wrong for us to do so.
Either we think that the number of MSPs is a problem or we do not. If it is a problem, we need to bite the bullet. We are too hair-shirt in this Parliament, and we too often respond to external forces. In my view, that approach has not been good for the Parliament. After all, we serve the public, and if we are not resourced—whether in terms of the number of MSPs or the allowances that we get—that is an issue.
It is unlikely that anything will happen in that regard any time soon, but if this committee takes the view that resource is an issue—which it might not, of course—something should be done. If members say that it is an issue but we should not do anything about it, that is wrong, regardless of whether those members are retiring next year.
There is a resource problem in this Parliament—there is no question about it. I am an MSP and the convener of my parliamentary group, and I sit on two committees; some members even sit on three committees. I do not have anyone working for me in the Parliament. I make that choice because of the amount of constituency work that I have but, when I was a list MSP, I could afford to have someone to assist me in Parliament.
There is a problem that is quite stark for someone like me. I was oblivious to it previously, because most of the MPs from Scotland who sat at Westminster were Labour members. Now, most of the MPs—practically all of them, in fact—are Scottish National Party members. Putting aside the responsibilities and the workload, the difference in the resource that is available to MPs and that which is available to MSPs is outrageous, to be frank. If we do not recognise that—especially as more work is given to us on top of the work that we are doing at present—and put it on the agenda, nothing will ever happen.
We have to be brave enough. If we think that it is a problem, we need to say that it is. If we do not think that it is a problem, we can just not say it. I think that it is a problem and that it should be addressed, as we do not give the public the service that they deserve. I am now on record as raising the issue in public.
The number of people in our party who have become MPs is phenomenal, and that sends a message. They have left because we could not take care of them. They are good people who, in some cases, have not served their time. That is wrong. They should be allowed to move, and I encourage them to do so, but we need the stability and the resources in this Parliament so that we can better serve the public.
My main message is: what is the point in us sitting here talking about the issues and then saying, “We know it’s a problem but we’re not going to say anything about it”? In my book, that is just not on. We need to be a bit bolder in that respect.
Something has got to give, for sure, in the light of what I have just said. I would also like us to be able to participate in committee meetings at the same time as debates are taking place. It is a bit daft that we have the resource sitting empty and we cannot utilise it because there is a debate on.
Another point concerns the size of committees, given that some members are on three committees. It is simple mathematics; we need to fit things together in a better way. We need to reduce the number of committees that each member sits on so that they can participate in a better fashion.
Lastly, I must say to Patrick Harvie that in the outside world, all the way down the line, recognition is shown not by badges on someone’s jacket but by enhanced pay. It is very unlikely that I will ever become a convener—perhaps I will not even remain convener of the parliamentary group, given what I have just said—so I am not speaking for myself.
I was a member of the Health and Sport Committee. My party did not chair that committee, but I emphasise that the workload of the convener was phenomenal and went way beyond what we as committee members were doing. We need to find ways to give conveners status in order to recognise that workload. In my view—I will bite the bullet here—the best way of doing that would be to enhance their salary, which is what happens in Westminster and in most other Parliaments. We should not duck the issue but do the right thing.