Scottish Parliament, 24 June 2025

541 contributions from 56 members. The official report.

Time for Reflection

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is time for reflection. Our time for reflection leader today is Dr Yekemi Otaru, chancellor of the University of the West of Scotland.

Dr Yekemi Otaru (University of the West of Scotland)

Presiding Officer and members of the Scottish Parliament, thank you for this opportunity to share a few reflections. I am Yekemi and I am chancellor of the University of the West of Scotland, or UWS for short. That is still a sentence that I sometimes have to repeat to myself, because it is a long way from where my family started. My grandfather did not believe in educating girls. I have 12 aunties, none of whom went to primary school—that was just not the world that they lived in. If my grandfather could see me now, with five university degrees including two master’s, running businesses, leading a local charity and now standing here as chancellor of a university, I think that he would be a bit shocked, but maybe just a little bit proud, too.

Coming to Scotland over 20 years ago brought me opportunities to learn, to grow and to lead in a welcoming country. Now, I have children of my own being educated here in Scotland. That is something that I never take for granted. It is about more than books and exams; it is about building confidence and shaping values. At UWS, we take that very seriously. Sixty seven per cent of our undergraduate students are 21 or older when they start. Many are returning to education after raising children, changing careers or just finally getting the chance that they missed earlier in life, and roughly 45 per cent are the first in their family to go to university.

I know what education has done for me. It has opened doors that I did not even know existed. It has helped me to start businesses, to build a career and, now, to give back through charity work. In my role as chancellor, I hope that I can be a role model for students who wonder whether people like them can lead too. Representation matters. Whether people see someone from their ethnic background, their gender or their community in a leadership role, it tells them, and especially young people, “You belong too.”

As the Nigerian author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie once said, “We should all be feminists”. I would add that we should all be champions of education, because when we educate and empower people, especially women, we do not just improve lives—we transform communities.

Today, I reflect with gratitude—gratitude for the teachers, the public servants, the institutions and the policies that make education possible, not just for people like me, but for every child with a dream bigger than their circumstances. Thank you.

Business Motion

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-18099, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to business. Any member who wishes to speak to the motion should press their request-to-speak button now.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for—

(a) Tuesday 24 June 2025—

after

followed by Topical Questions (if selected)

insert

followed by Ministerial Statement: Initial Response to the Gillies Review of University of Dundee Finances

delete

10.00 pm Decision Time

and insert

9.50 pm Decision Time

(b) Wednesday 25 June 2025—

after

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, and Parliamentary Business; Justice and Home Affairs

insert

followed by First Minister’s Statement: Historical Policies Affecting Gypsy/Traveller Communities

after

followed by Ministerial Statement: The Scottish Government's Medium-Term Financial Strategy and Fiscal Sustainability Delivery Plan

insert

followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Education (Scotland) Bill

delete

followed by Legislative Consent Motion: Employment Rights Bill - UK Legislation

followed by Legislative Consent Motion: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill - UK Legislation

and insert

followed by Legislative Consent Motion: Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill - UK Legislation

delete

5.50 pm Decision Time

and insert

7.40 pm Decision Time

(c) Thursday 26 June 2025

delete

2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Education and Skills

and insert

2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Education and Skills

after

followed by Ministerial Statement: Ensuring the Right Support for Young People's Neurodivergence, Mental Health and Wellbeing

insert

followed by Legislative Consent Motion: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill - UK Legislation

delete

followed by Legislative Consent Motion: Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill - UK Legislation

and insert

followed by Legislative Consent Motion: Employment Rights Bill - UK Legislation—[Jamie Hepburn]

Motion agreed to.

Topical Question Time

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the use of Scottish Government-owned infrastructure by the United States military, in light of US air strikes on Iran. (S6T-02608)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I can confirm that issues relating to the conflict in the middle east, specifically around Gaza and Iran, were raised by the Scottish Government with the United Kingdom Government on 13 June at the British-Irish Council and, earlier today, by the First Minister with the Cabinet Office.

Carol Mochan will be aware that the recent United States military action in Iran was launched directly from American facilities in the USA and flights did not land in any other country, including Scotland. The UK Foreign Secretary said to the House of Commons yesterday that the UK had no involvement in the military action against Iran.

Carol Mochan will also be aware that the UK Government decides which flights can enter the UK. Ultimately, although the Scottish Government can—and does—make representations on the situation in Iran and related issues, those matters are the responsibility of the UK Government.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

The cabinet secretary will know that Prestwick airport is in my region, South Scotland. Can he assure my constituents that sites such as Prestwick airport will not be used to facilitate attacks on Iran by the USA, nor to support Israeli aircraft, given that those efforts have no United Nations backing whatsoever? Will he also be clear about what US activity is currently happening at the Prestwick airport site?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

As Carol Mochan might appreciate, I have been keen to understand as much as I can about the issue. I can give her the assurance that I have not seen any information that would support any conclusion about the direct involvement of Scottish facilities in military attacks on Iran. As I have already shared with her, it is a matter of public record that those were conducted by the United States through direct flights that were refuelled in the air from bases in the United States of America, and which attacked Iran and returned without going to any other base.

I understand Carol Mochan’s more general point about Prestwick airport. If she has any information that would support her concern, I will be grateful to hear it.

We remain in dialogue with the United Kingdom Government. Carol Mochan’s party is in government in the UK; perhaps she would use her good offices to raise the issue with the responsible UK ministers. When it comes to devolved responsibilities, we will do everything that we can, but she will appreciate that there are limits.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s response. I, too, take my responsibilities seriously. Will the cabinet secretary join me, as well as—I am sure—the majority of Scots and people across the world, in saying that we cannot engage in diplomacy through violence, that we must call for peace and that all our efforts towards peace must be peaceful. For our part, that must include not selling to the US or Israel weapons manufactured in Scotland that might be used to move the world closer to war.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I agree with Carol Mochan, and I appreciate the fact that she has taken the opportunity to cogently and persuasively make her case. We have a moral responsibility. I agree with her on that. Even if we can use only our voices, we should do so. As she knows, this Parliament does not have powers over foreign affairs. I would wish to change that; perhaps, in good time, I can persuade her that she should support that, too. In the meantime, we will use our voice to support peace and diplomacy.

The First Minister has made a number of statements that very much echo the position of the secretary general of the United Nations, António Guterres. We will repeat our view that we believe that only diplomacy will bring conflict to an end. I appreciate the way in which Carol Mochan has raised her questions this afternoon.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The United States has acted decisively to degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities. We must remember that Iran is a state sponsor of global terrorism. In such circumstances, we must stand firmly with our allies the United States and Israel in defence of international security. Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether any formal arrangements, including memoranda of understanding, exist to allow US military usage of Scottish Government-owned infrastructure such as Prestwick airport, and does he agree that such support is right and responsible?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I would have to check the status of memoranda of understanding, but I am not aware of any. However, Stephen Kerr will appreciate that it is a matter of public record that Prestwick airport is used by the United States Air Force, the Royal Canadian Air Force and a number of air forces from the middle east.

The topical question today specifically relates to the situation in Iran. I was able to give the member who lodged the question the assurance—which I also give Mr Kerr—that Prestwick was not used as part of those attacks on Iran.

However, facilities in Scotland are obviously used by our allies. Given the concerns of a great many people in this chamber and among the public about what is happening in Gaza in particular, it is entirely legitimate that we ensure that we do everything that we can to support peace and a resolution for the people of Gaza, and, as I have often said to Stephen Kerr, for the hostages who are being held by Hamas, who should be released.

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

In 2023, it was reported that the airport had received a boost of more than £20 million through its military flight usage. Although it is hard to ascertain the true number, it has also been reported that, since 2017, the Pentagon has paid more than £70 million through some means or other for the use of Prestwick airport. It has also been used as a hub for North Atlantic Treaty Organization flights in order to send supplies to Ukraine, for example.

Given that the Scottish Government owns the airport, what impact would the removal of any military usage and loss of associated income have on the airport’s ability to compete as a going concern—or, indeed, to be sold as a going concern, which I presume is still the Scottish Government’s position?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The first thing to acknowledge is that Prestwick is an excellent airport, which is why it is used for both civil and military purposes. It is fair to say that the militaries of different countries often use bases; if they are dealing with military materiel, they tend to fly from one military base to another. In the UK, there are two bases that are operated by the Royal Air Force that have a significant US Air Force presence. That being said, as I have already said, Prestwick is used by the air forces of allied countries, which is entirely appropriate.

However, given the very legitimate concerns about what has been going on in the middle east, it is unsurprising to me that colleagues want to understand how we are operating things and that we are doing so as best as we possibly can; I, too, am keen to understand as much as I can.

Jamie Greene is absolutely right that Prestwick is an excellent airport that serves both civil and military flights.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The majority of Prestwick’s income comes from fuel sales revenues, most of which are driven by military customers. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that Prestwick’s use by the US Air Force directly contributes to the viability of the airport, which also means that the Scottish Government, as the airport’s owner, benefits financially from the US Air Force refuelling at the airport?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

As I have pointed out to colleagues, Prestwick is a facility that is used for both civil and military flights. What is true for US aircraft using the facilities is true for aircraft from other allied air forces that also use what is an excellent airport. I foresee that continuing.

That being said, I am sure that the Presiding Officer would wish me to bring my remarks back to the actual subject, which relates to Iran. It is important to differentiate between the general use of a facility for military purposes and other use. However, I was able to give the chamber an assurance, because it is a matter of public record, that the American attacks on Iran took place from the United States of America and did not involve any military facilities in any other country, least of all Scotland.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that there were almost 30,000 breaches of community payback orders in the last 11 years. (S6T-02606)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Presiding Officer, 78 per cent of community payback orders that finished during 2023-24 did not involve any breach applications during the duration of the order. When a CPO is breached, it is up to the independent courts to decide the most appropriate outcome, based on all the circumstances of the case, and that might include the imposition of a custodial sentence.

Community payback orders are a flexible and robust disposal, with a consistently lower reconviction rate compared with short prison sentences. That is why our budget for 2025-26 includes an additional £11 million in support for community justice services.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

Community payback orders are frequently handed down as an alternative to custody, including in cases of violence and domestic abuse. It should follow that, when such an order is breached, criminals should be considered for a custodial sentence. Shockingly, however, only 26 per cent of CPO breaches led to a prison sentence in that period, while even more criminals simply got another community payback order right after breaching the first one.

The very least that Scots expect is that criminals should carry out the sentence that they have been given, or face consequences if they do not, including going to prison. In response to that scandal, will the Government bring in tougher sanctions for criminals who violate community payback orders, and ensure that actions have consequences?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

It is for the courts to decide what proper punishment is. A community payback order is a high-tariff community disposal. It is flexible and robust, and it can be enhanced. It can involve someone being tagged or restricted to a curfew, and it can be combined with a restriction of liberty order or a restricted movement requirement.

Ms Dowey has not indicated that, over the period in her question, which is 12 years, the 29,500 CPOs that were revoked due to a breach amounted to 16 per cent of the total number of CPOs, meaning that 184,424 community payback orders were completed or terminated.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

I do not think that victims will be reassured by that response. The Scottish National Party has been clear that it wants more community payback orders and fewer people in prisons. We see that in its two-tier sentencing guidelines for under-25s, presumption against short sentences and early release of hundreds of prisoners. It should be a source of embarrassment for the Government that so many criminals thought that they could get away with breaching the terms of their sentence. It is more embarrassing still that, in the majority of those cases, there were apparently no meaningful consequences.

There is also a lack of transparency. More than 2,200 criminals were issued with other penalties, and more than 7,300 were issued with other outcomes, but the SNP Government does not state in its data what that means. Almost 2,000 were listed as “Outcome not known”. That is not good enough. If the Scottish Government is not serious about criminals completing their punishment, why should we expect offenders to respect their sentence?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The facts of the matter are that, in 2023-24, 71 per cent of community payback orders were completed and 78 per cent did not involve any breach. Nearly 30 per cent of CPOs that were revoked due to a breach resulted in a custodial sentence and another 30-plus per cent resulted in a new community payback order. As I said, CPOs can be enhanced and made more onerous for individuals. It is entirely right that people have to pay back to communities, as opposed to the taxpayer paying for a short-term sentence that, at the end of the day, is less effective.

Monetary penalties can also be issued for those who have breached a CPO. The other penalties that are issued can include a drug treatment and testing order or even a restriction of liberty order.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

Community payback orders make a significant contribution towards the wider objective of strengthening alternatives to custody and ensuring that our prisons are used for those who should be there. Will the cabinet secretary provide an update on what assessment the Scottish Government has carried out in relation to community justice and reoffending rates?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The evidence is clear that community sentences are more effective in reducing reoffending than short prison sentences of up to 12 months. Community disposals may also provide greater opportunities for rehabilitation, leading to fewer victims and safer communities. Specifically, the reconviction rate for those given community payback orders in 2020-21 was just under 28 per cent, compared with more than 50 per cent for those who completed custodial sentences of one year or less. Protecting victims and the public from further harm is our absolute priority, and that is entirely consistent with our approach to community justice.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

When there is a custodial sentence, the justice system ensures that the offender complies with that sentence. However, when there is a non-custodial sentence or, indeed, an electronic monitoring order, a high percentage of those are not enforced. What is the cabinet secretary doing to ensure greater compliance with community disposals?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

As I have demonstrated in my answers to Ms Dowey and other members, there is a high compliance rate with community disposals. However, crucially, where there is non-compliance, it is a matter for the courts to decide what other punishment is appropriate.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes topical question time. I will allow a moment or two for front bench members to reorganise themselves.

University of Dundee Finances (Gillies Review)

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is a statement by Jenny Gilruth on an initial response to the Gillies review of University of Dundee finances. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Scotland’s universities are anchor institutions in our communities, acting both locally and globally. Put simply, they are woven into the very fabric of Scotland’s identity.

Before I turn to the substantive matters of today’s statement, I acknowledge the deep concern, uncertainty, and distress that many of the staff, students and members of the wider community of the University of Dundee have felt in recent months. I have witnessed that at first hand, having engaged with trade unions directly over recent months and having met with staff at the university’s school of life sciences.

At the heart of Dundee university is a community of people who care deeply about the future of the institution. My focus—the focus of this Government—is on ensuring that the University of Dundee emerges from this crisis stronger than ever.

Before we can move forward to secure that future, the university must respond to the urgent and clear conclusions of Professor Pamela Gillies’s report on financial oversight and decision making at the University of Dundee.

We have already seen individuals at the university take decisive action, with changes at a senior level being announced last week. That is welcome, and it must be the start of a process not just to appoint fresh leadership but to restore confidence among staff.

I am encouraged that Professor Nigel Seaton, formerly principal of Abertay University, will take on the role of interim principal on a short-term basis, and Ian Mair, who is deputy chair of court, will step in as interim chair of court. Elections will, quite rightly, take place for a new chair of court over the summer. I put on record my gratitude to the wider sector and to Universities Scotland for their collaborative efforts in supporting the University of Dundee.

Turning to the Gillies review, I sincerely thank Professor Pamela Gillies and her investigation team for the robust report that has been produced. I thank everyone who gave evidence to the review and I extend my gratitude for a thorough and insightful report that has uncovered the events leading to this situation. Indeed, there is much detail in the report alongside important recommendations for the university to consider. The overall themes include a breakdown in governance and processes at a leadership and court level, as well as a culture that did not cultivate openness and challenge; issues with financial management, reporting and oversight; and missed opportunities to raise and respond to a worsening financial situation.

Professor Gillies outlines that, although the Scottish Funding Council’s financial memorandum and code of good higher education governance in Scotland are fit for purpose, and that the university was obliged to comply with them, it did not do so. The code provides a framework for effective management and governance arrangements, but the university failed to operate effectively in practice.

Professor Gillies notes that there were inconsistencies and gaps in the information reported to the university’s executive group, finance committee and court. However, information was produced which, with appropriate challenge, should have signalled warnings from March 2024, if not earlier.

Although many of the recommendations are, quite rightly, a matter for Dundee university to respond to, ministers have already held early discussions with the Scottish Funding Council to consider what more we might seek to do to strengthen governance in our institutions. It is right that we do that, given the public interest in our universities.

With that in mind, I turn to the actions that the Scottish Government is taking to support the university at this difficult time. I make it clear that this is not about rewarding failure, but about responding to an unprecedented and unique situation that threatens much of what we hold dear in our university sector: students’ futures; Dundee university’s contribution to health and other sectors; the vitality of our communities; and the profound impact that the university has on the wider city region.

Colleagues will recall the announcement earlier this year of £25 million from the Scottish Government to the sector, of which £22 million was directed by the Scottish Funding Council to the University of Dundee. The Scottish Government is determined to do everything that we can to secure a positive future for Dundee university. That must be achieved through the delivery of a sustainable, long-term recovery plan in which public financial support will work alongside commercial and private investment to ultimately end reliance on extraordinary public funding.

To that end, ministers are keen to see progress at pace from the university to deliver that plan. We will, accordingly, develop appropriate conditions for the funding, working closely with the SFC, and only when that plan is in place will funding be released. The university’s journey towards immediate and longer-term sustainability will continue to be supported by the on-going work of the strategic advisory task force, chaired by Sir Alan Langlands, which is expected to complete its work in July.

Members understand that our universities are independent and autonomous institutions. In normal circumstances, decisions on the allocation of funding to individual institutions are, quite rightly, the responsibility of the SFC. However, this is a unique and unprecedented set of circumstances that requires a unique and unprecedented response. Where there has been the appearance of financial mismanagement at an institution, Scottish ministers are obliged to consider whether it is necessary or expedient to issue a direction to the SFC about the provision of financial support.

Subject to the public value test that I have set out today, Scottish ministers consider that it is both necessary and expedient for a direction to be issued to the SFC under section 25 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005. The use of that power is unprecedented and has been made necessary by the exceptional circumstances at the university, as set out in the findings of the Gillies report, which recounts

“poor financial judgement ... and weak governance”.

However, the process as set out allows for ministers to target a direct settlement to the University of Dundee, and to place specific conditions on that funding in this unprecedented set of circumstances. I can confirm, therefore, that the Scottish Government will provide funding in principle of up to £40 million over two academic years, or three financial years, via the Scottish Funding Council, to support the University of Dundee. That funding is subject to further due diligence prior to any expenditure occurring.

The SFC will continue to support the university in its development of a robust and deliverable recovery plan, which leverages commercial lending. However, there remains a liquidity gap. Dundee university estimates that gap to be in the region of between £45 million and £60 million across the next two academic years. That figure is also likely to be impacted by progress at the university to reduce expenditure and stabilise income.

Colleagues will understand that that figure requires to be further interrogated by the Scottish Funding Council. The SFC has been advised by Dundee university that, although this is not an immediate cash need, it will need to be addressed before the end of the current financial year. It is, therefore, vital that the university works to secure a plan that will allow for commercial lending to support some, or all, of that liquidity ask. The Government will, of course, consider all avenues and other support that we can provide to achieve that end.

I want to provide reassurance today to the wider higher education sector that the additional funding to Dundee university will not impact on the funding that is available from the SFC to any other institution. In doing so, I recognise that many institutions have, over recent years, worked proactively in response to a challenging operating environment to rationalise their operations, including their staffing levels. However, there is a need for our universities to reflect on the levels of growth that we have witnessed in some institutions during the pandemic in particular. Some of the planned job losses that are currently being experienced relate directly to that uncapped expansion; the costs that are being paid today are the unsustainable jobs that were created as a result of that.

Although Dundee university’s finances might be unique, its approach to investment in the international student economy is not, so there is a lesson in Dundee university’s experiences that other institutions should be mindful of.

Clearly, Dundee university will need time to fully work through the challenges that the Gillies review presents, and to respond accordingly. Ministers will support that endeavour through the auspices of the Scottish Funding Council, and the SFC will provide an update to the Education, Children and Young People Committee on its associated next steps. Ministers will provide a further update to Parliament early in the new term.

I have appreciated the cross-party engagement with local members, and I give colleagues an undertaking today that that engagement will continue as we progress with the associated next steps.

Finally, I offer my personal thanks to the trade union representatives at Dundee university. Their leadership and support to their members at this time has been invaluable.

A line must now be drawn under the mistakes of a collective few, and jointly, across this chamber, we must endeavour to support Dundee university to rebuild, thrive and, once again, flourish. The city of discovery should expect no less.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business. Members who wish to put a question should press their request-to-speak buttons.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement and I express my concern for staff and students at Dundee university at this time.

When universities across Scotland are experiencing serious concerns about their future financial sustainability, I do not think that it is wise for us to say that we want just to draw a line under the mistakes that have been made at Dundee university. The cabinet secretary’s statement shows that, even after the steps that the Government has taken, there will be a potential £20 million black hole in the university’s finances over the next two years. If a bailout of £20 million is needed over the next two years, what will be the Government’s plan B to fund the gap?

Given Wendy Alexander’s allegations at the weekend, what police investigation might be undertaken into criminality at the university?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I thank Mr Briggs for his questions and I share his concern for staff and students. I am conscious that we are tight for time, but he mentioned a number of factors, and I will address each in turn.

I have not explicitly touched on the wider external factors, but there is no doubt that the changes to international immigration rules—which were, of course, introduced by Mr Briggs’s party—have hampered our institutions. We know that that was a factor in Dundee, and that is set out in Pamela Gillies’s report. Brexit has also been a factor for Dundee—again, the report addresses that.

Mr Briggs talks about drawing a line, but that is not the Government’s position at all. If he considers the totality of the recommendations, they are, in the main, quite rightly a matter for Dundee university. However, I have been clear today that ministers want to assure ourselves about approaches to governance. Mr Dey and I met the chair of the Scottish Funding Council only yesterday. He was very clear that, had the university adhered to the good practice guide that exists for all higher education institutions in Scotland, there would not have been an issue. As I identified in my statement, that is not what happened. However, we want to assure ourselves of what more we might do to strengthen governance in that respect.

Mr Briggs has identified a £20 million funding gap that I am not familiar with. The funding that I announced today is the totality of the ask from the university to date. That has been met. We also made available to the sector £25 million, of which £22 million was directed to Dundee earlier this year. We will continue to work with the university.

Finally, in response to the question about the next steps, plan B is—rightly—a matter for the university. However, the Scottish Funding Council is working to support the university, which needs to come forward with a long-term strategic plan to allow the university to thrive into the future.

There was a final point in relation to potential criminality, which I addressed in interviews last week. I have heard some of the challenge from Wendy Alexander about the culture in the organisation, which is also spoken about in the report. The Scottish Funding Council and Professor Pamela Gillies have assured me that they found no evidence of criminality. However, that is a matter for the appropriate authorities, and not for ministers, to comment on.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I thank Professor Gillies for her report, which lays bare the financial vandalism of three individuals in particular. There is real relief in Dundee that there is now a greater understanding and acknowledgement of the conduct of management and the collapse of effective governance at the university. We all have to focus on building a sustainable future for the city’s most important institution.

The university submitted a request for a further £100 million to the Scottish Government on 30 May, which was 25 days ago. Almost one month on from that, will the cabinet secretary set out to us what additional scrutiny of that request is required?

The cabinet secretary acknowledged that income growth from international recruitment is not a realistic option for Scottish universities. Where will Dundee university find the money to repay up to £60 million of loans, whether that is from the Government or from a commercial source? The Scottish Government has already given the green light for 300 jobs to be cut but, without income growth, will further cost cutting not be inevitable? How does the cabinet secretary think that that circle can be squared?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Michael Marra has raised a number of points. He mentioned the relief that is being felt in Dundee university. That was palpable after the Government’s first announcement on funding—I met staff on that very day, earlier this year. I have since heard from trade union members about their feelings on the back of the report that was published last week. I have also very much felt the frustration throughout the engagement that Mr Dey and I have had with staff.

Mr Marra is right to talk about a sustainable future. He spoke about the liquidity ask in the context of what I have announced. I have set out that the £40 million that has been requested will be met over the next financial years; that has been confirmed by the Scottish Government. We are required to undertake further due diligence with the university, which will be undertaken at pace with the Scottish Funding Council. Mr Marra should also be mindful that the outcome of the report, which was published only on Thursday, impacted on the way in which ministers were able to award the funding that I am talking about. The use of the section 25 power is unprecedented, and it requires us to reflect on the unique situation that exists in Dundee. We will continue to work with the university leadership on the next steps.

In my statement, I rightly talked about the need for additional funding to come from other sources that are not public—for example, via banks and commercial opportunities. Mr Marra will be aware of some of the challenges that the university has faced in that regard, which are spelled out in the report. Had lending been an available financial option for the university, it would not have found itself in such a challenging position. We will continue to work with the university to support its growth, which is vital for the institution, the city and the wider city region.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

I welcome the announcement of support from the cabinet secretary and her decision to use the section 25 power. I also appreciate how much ministers have been engaging with me and other MSPs, who have largely worked on a collaborative basis across party lines.

My focus remains on the staff, who have been badly let down by the university’s management and who understandably remain angry and anxious. Will the cabinet secretary outline how the Scottish Government’s financial support will help to save jobs in Dundee? Will she assure staff that steps will be taken to fully remove the threat of compulsory redundancies?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I thank Joe FitzPatrick for his engagement as the local constituency MSP. It is simply unacceptable that staff and students should suffer because of historical leadership and governance failures. The £40 million of funding that I have announced for the next two academic years will give staff and students confidence and will help to return the university to the thriving institution that we all want it to be. The money is needed to support that development and the delivery of the sustainable long-term recovery plan that Mr Briggs rightly spoke to. As I mentioned in my response to Mr Marra, public finance will work alongside commercial and private investment to ultimately end the reliance on extraordinary public funding. I will continue to consider all avenues and other support that might be needed.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Scottish Government providing £40 million to the University of Dundee, subject to due diligence, is very welcome. However, the liquidity gap of between £45 million and £60 million will remain across the next two academic years. Do those estimates factor in the expected recruitment challenges in the domestic and international markets as a result of a reduction in the number of courses and reputational damage? Will the Scottish Government offer any long-term assurance on that liquidity gap beyond what the cabinet secretary has highlighted today?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Mr Golden hits on an important point, and I welcome his support for the £40 million that has been announced. There are issues in relation to the estimates that have been provided to ministers, and we will have to reassure ourselves of the totality of the ask from the public purse.

Mr Golden rightly speaks to the impact of international immigration—of course that will be a factor. Indeed, there will be fluctuating factors in the years to come that will impact on the totality of that figure. We are therefore working with the Scottish Funding Council to reassure ourselves about that final figure.

However, we are also asking the university to look more widely at other sources of funding, because there is not a sustainable future without that. I do not think that any of us here accept that the Government should directly provide on-going funding. We need to work with the university to allow it to come up with a plan that sets out a sustainable future, which was the point that Mr Briggs quite rightly made.

I agree with the member’s points. We will continue to engage with the Scottish Funding Council on reassuring ourselves of the totality of the liquidity ask.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

The Leverhulme research centre for forensic science at the University of Dundee provides a range of crucial forensic services in Scotland. Recent evidence that was provided to the Criminal Justice Committee’s inquiry on substance misuse in prisons described the drug testing service provided by the centre as “critical”. I understand that nine core-funded staff are at risk of redundancy, which risks the future of the drug testing work for the Scottish Prison Service and for the planned national drug testing laboratory for Scotland.

Will the cabinet secretary provide an update on the work that is being done to secure the future of the centre, given its importance to the delivery of justice in Scotland? Will she provide clarity on the university’s recent statement that forensic science will continue to be delivered as part of its portfolio, while pressing ahead with possible redundancies for all its research-active and core-funded forensic science staff?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I thank Audrey Nicoll for raising a hugely important point. Dundee university’s contribution to our national and international forensics, justice and law enforcement policy is of significant importance, and the Government has made strong representations to the university about the importance of retaining its strength in forensic sciences.

To reassure Ms Nicoll, I highlight that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs is a member of the cross-Government group on Dundee, which is led by the Deputy First Minister. That is because we recognise the critical importance of the university’s forensic science capabilities, which must be protected into the future. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Funding Council will continue to offer the university support to ensure that it fully explores all available options to maintain its significant research expertise as part of its pathway to financial recovery.

I understand that the situation at the Leverhulme research centre relates to external research funding, which was already due to come to an end prior to the situation with Dundee university’s finances arising last November. However, I absolutely appreciate that this will be a really anxious time for staff, and I have asked my officials to engage with the Scottish Funding Council and other relevant stakeholders to explore options in order to optimise forensic capability at the university.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

The report uncovers some awful failures, and I welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to progress the wider governance lesson for the sector. I would ask that, in doing so, she works with universities and the trade unions.

However, we should not ignore the fact that, although Dundee has experienced unique problems, the sector is in dire straits, with many institutions having to make cuts, resulting in job losses and fewer students from deprived areas going to university. The entire sector has endured little more than managed decline on this Government’s watch, with year after year of cuts and being told that there is no more money.

Can the cabinet secretary tell us where the £40 million is coming from?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Our universities in Scotland do not exist in a silo. They are impacted by policies that exist across these islands, not least, of course, international immigration rules. I am sure that the member will want to reflect on the role of those rules in relation to the findings of Pamela Gillies’s report. The University of Dundee was also impacted by Brexit, and that is set out clearly in the report. Finally, I mention the increase in employer national insurance contributions, which Universities Scotland estimates could cost the sector in Scotland up to £45 million.

I am sure that Ms Duncan-Glancy will urge her Labour colleagues to consider what more they could do to help to alleviate the pressure on Scottish institutions and on those across the United Kingdom. I will, of course, give her an undertaking that we will work with the trade unions and on a cross-party basis in relation to our continued work to support Dundee university.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Despite claims made by Conservative and Labour members last week, Professor Gillies clearly outlines the impact of a number of policies implemented by past and previous UK Tory and Labour Governments, including restrictive immigration policies, national insurance rises and Brexit. What is the cabinet secretary's assessment of how those Westminster policies have done further damage to the University of Dundee?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

As I have just alluded to in my response to Ms Duncan-Glancy, the UK Government has a role to play here. It could help by recognising the impact of its policies that are damaging university finances, not just in Scotland but across the United Kingdom. Brexit, which I mentioned previously, national insurance rises and those immigration policies are all the responsibilities of another Government. It would be welcome if we could have a team approach to supporting the sector in Scotland that recognises where other responsibilities rest.

It does not need to be this way. The UK Government could support our plans for a Scottish graduate visa, or it could provide consequential support for universities for employer national insurance contributions.

We are stepping up for universities in Scotland. I urge Labour members in particular to consider what more their Westminster colleagues could be doing, too.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

The cabinet secretary highlights the Gillies report’s call for openness and transparency, but already the interim leadership team is showing little sign of change. I have heard concerning reports that the democratically elected student representative on the court is being asked by the interim chair to not attend handover court meetings where the report is being discussed. There has been no attempt yet to include new voices from unions, Dundee University Students Association or the incoming rector in the development of the action plan, which is due later this summer.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that there is no justification for excluding court members from court discussions when there is no conflict of interest? What more can the Government be doing to ensure that the culture change that is needed starts now and that discussions about the future are inclusive, open and transparent?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The member has set out a range of factors that I am not familiar with. The important point to take from my statement today is that we all must come together to work to support a viable future for the university. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment on the specific minutiae that the member has set out in relation to the role of the university court.

However, I understand that the deputy chair of court was appointed by the court of Dundee university by correspondence last week, on 16 June. The appointment was for the court and was made by the court. Professor Seaton was the university’s choice for interim principal, and any dialogue with the Scottish Funding Council on that decision was about the process, in order to ensure that the university was following its governance processes; I think that that gets to the essence of the question that I have been asked. My understanding is that processes have been followed appropriately, but I am more than happy to engage with the member and the trade unions on the substance of her point.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I will have the opportunity later this week to question the former leadership of Dundee university. I am concerned today about its future, because that is far from certain.

The money that has been made available is good—I am really pleased about the £40 million—but it is only for two years. To avoid future job losses, on top of the 300 jobs that are already going, there will need to be a significant increase in income growth. If that does not happen, more job losses could come, but people do not believe that it is realistic to expect a significant increase in growth in such a short period of time.

If the university comes back to this position, will the Government step in again to prevent future job losses?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I thank Mr Rennie for his question and his participation in the round tables that we have held with local members. He says that he welcomes the £40 million of funding that was announced today.

I do not want to be back here in two years’ time talking about additionality for the sector and, in particular, for Dundee university. Our purpose in providing the funding that was announced today is unique and unprecedented. That is why ministers have been advised to use the section 25 power, which is very different from the approach that we took earlier in the year, if Mr Rennie recalls, when we announced wider funding for the sector, of which Dundee university received £22 million in support.

This goes back to the essence of Mr Briggs’s question, which was about a plan and a sustainable look to the future. The leadership of Dundee university has to come forward with that plan at pace. The Scottish Funding Council has been working to support the university in that regard. The plan will require a look at extra sources of funding that are not public money, because public money alone is not a sustainable way in which to fund our autonomous, independent universities.

We will continue to work with the university sector. We have provided that £40 million of support thus far in addition to the £22 million of support. We will continue to work with the university on the liquidity ask to that end and on leveraging in wider investment, which will be critical to Mr Rennie’s points about growth.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Despite the financial challenges and declining international student numbers, it seems that Dundee university’s senior management hired more staff and continued to spend money without control. Professor Gillies’s review points to a failure of leadership. Leaders of the university’s court and members of senior management, including former Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander, who is now a Labour peer in the House of Lords, have let down the university’s staff and students. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the university requires fresh, strong leadership going forward? Will she reiterate how the Scottish Funding Council is working with the university to support it?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I fully agree with the sentiment behind Ms Mackay’s question. I understand that there is a need for interim leadership, as members will well understand, but the long-term plan that I spoke about in response to Mr Rennie must be put in place as soon as possible. I very much welcome the appointment of Professor Nigel Seaton as interim principal and Ian Mair as interim chair of court before the elections for the permanent chair are run over the summer.

Although the leadership is ultimately a matter for the university, I reflect that, whatever process is used to address the leadership gap, it should look to appoint effective leaders and to restore confidence in the court and the executive team. The Scottish Funding Council has been supporting the university, including through convening support from leaders elsewhere in the university sector.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The Gillies report sets out a timeline and a series of decisions that reek of incompetence and corruption. I listened to the cabinet secretary’s earlier response in which she said that, based on the Gillies report, she does not believe that the level of criminality has yet been breached. However, if further information comes forward or if that subjective view alters, can she confirm that the Scottish Government will fully co-operate with any criminal investigation surrounding Dundee university and the people who are in charge of it?

In response to an earlier question, the cabinet secretary said that the court elected the interim chair on 16 June. However, 16 June was last Monday, which was several days before the Gillies report was published, and we were all told that, immediately after the publication of the report, the chair of the court resigned. Did the cabinet secretary misspeak when she said that it was on 16 June, or were people resigning from the court and the top of Dundee university before the report was even published?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

On that final point, I clearly have the date inadvertently wrong in my speaking note, so I will seek to correct the record at a later date.

In relation to the thrust of Mr Ross’s question, I agree with him on the damning verdict of the report. He talked through the timeline. On reading the report last week, I was struck by the fact that, throughout, there were various points at which intervention could and should have happened. The failure to take that opportunity has led us to where we are today.

Mr Ross mentioned alleged criminality, which I think was also mentioned by Mr Briggs. I have already sought assurances on that matter from the Scottish Funding Council and Professor Pamela Gillies. They were both clear that there was no evidence of criminality, but I wanted to assure myself of that point. The Government would of course co-operate with any inquiry in that regard.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I am keen to include all members who have pressed their request-to-speak buttons, so concise questions and responses would be appreciated.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

Although the Scottish Government is ultimately not responsible for governance at the University of Dundee, the Scottish Government should still encourage all employers and institutions to follow the fair work principles of good engagement with employees and trade unions to bring everyone to the table. Will the cabinet secretary provide an update on the latest Scottish Government engagement with employees of Dundee university and trade unions to ensure that their voices inform the Scottish Government’s work going forward?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

As I mentioned, the Minister for Higher and Further Education; and Minister for Veterans and I have met trade unions a number of times. Mr Dey met campus unions last Thursday, following the publication of the review. We continue to have a useful dialogue with the unions, and we have been supporting relationship building with the executive team.

I draw members’ attention to the work of the task force, which is chaired by Sir Alan Langlands, in ensuring that voices are being heard. The task force, which has now met three times, brings together a wide range of key stakeholders, including trade unions, Dundee City Council, other universities, enterprise and skills bodies, the national health service, businesses and student representatives.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Given all that has happened, does the cabinet secretary consider that a case will be made to review the Higher Education Governance (Scotland) Act 2016, about which the Parliament deliberated very long and hard?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The historic passage of that legislation was a topic of discussion at Cabinet this morning, which is why I hear the First Minister chuckling at Liz Smith’s point.

I have not had that case presented to me thus far. I discussed the issue at length with the chair of the SFC yesterday and with Mr Dey, and we also discussed it with the SFC last week in relation to governance changes. The SFC’s view, and that of Pamela Gillies, is that enough guidance is in place. However, I am aware from our engagement with the chair of the SFC that wider work is currently happening across the UK to look at the strengthening of governance in institutions, and I have committed that we will engage with the SFC to that end.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

Both the internal and external auditors appear to have given the university’s July 2023 accounts, which would not have been completed until about the end of 2023, a clean bill of health. Does it surprise the cabinet secretary that the auditors do not seem to have picked anything up?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I have read some of the auditors’ commentary in the press. I am advised that the activity and cost of the audit process is currently being undertaken by the SFC, but I understand that the university is meeting auditors today, if that gives Mr Mason some comfort.

EY has also stated that it is unable to give an audit opinion without knowing the outcome of the investigations that the university has been subjected to, which I think Mr Mason was alluding to. I will await the outcome of today’s university and auditors meeting and further advice from the SFC.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes the ministerial statement on the initial response to the Gillies review of University of Dundee finances. I will allow a brief moment for front-bench members to reorganise before the next item of business.

Budget (Provisional Outturn 2024-25)

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is a statement by Ivan McKee on the 2024-25 provisional outturn. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I welcome the opportunity to update Parliament on the provisional outturn against the budget for the financial year 2024-25. The provisional outturn demonstrates once again that this Government is prudently and competently managing Scotland’s finances while protecting our priorities and ensuring that we have sustained effective delivery of public services.

Once again, managing the financial position for 2024-25 was a challenge. The continued impact of inflation, pressure on public sector pay and wider geopolitical instability meant that careful consideration had to be given to balancing the Scottish budget. As members know, we cannot overspend our budget, even by a single penny, and we cannot underspend in excess of the Scotland reserve limit, which is just over £700 million. Over and above that, we have limited fiscal levers and cannot borrow to meet day-to-day costs. Savings remain our main source of funds for managing emerging pressures. In September 2024, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government set out to Parliament the difficult choices that were being taken.

Stronger overall provisional revenue performance from the fully devolved taxes than initially forecast, together with the additional funding that was received from the United Kingdom Government last October and the spending controls that we introduced, enabled us to achieve the cabinet secretary’s stated aim of removing all use of ScotWind revenues to support the wider budget in 2024-25. That has allowed us to target those revenues on investments in a range of net zero projects for the longer-term benefit of Scotland. Resource borrowing was also eliminated, which reduces the cost of borrowing that future budgets will need to fund, while capital borrowing was significantly reduced. All those actions help to ensure that we remain fiscally sustainable.

However, the outlook is still challenging. New threats to economic stability continue to emerge at a global level. We continue to see inflation above the Bank of England target of 2 per cent, which puts pressure on public sector pay deals to ensure that pay remains fair and competitive.

The UK Government spending review, which was announced on 11 June, confirmed that the rate of growth in the block grant had fallen below previous expectations, with the block grant growing by only 0.8 per cent in real terms year on year, which is considerably lower than the 1.5 per cent average growth in UK departmental spending. In addition, changes to employer national insurance contributions have not been fully funded for Scotland, and UK Government changes to benefit policy are expected to have a significant negative impact on funding in future years.

The impact that those changes will have on our financial planning will be set out to Parliament tomorrow in the medium-term financial strategy, but growing pressures in future years mean that we must act prudently and responsibly to remain fiscally sustainable.

Despite those challenges, we have continued to deliver for Scotland. In 2024-25, we supported fair and affordable pay deals for workers who provide our essential public services, thereby securing the continuity of those services and minimising the need for the sort of costly action that we saw in other parts of the UK. As the UK pay review bodies have recently demonstrated, current global socioeconomic pressures mean that Governments must look beyond their original budgeted costs. By using effective financial management, we were able to offer pay deals that were £600 million greater than planned.

In 2024-25, we invested more than £5.9 billion in social security assistance, which directly supported more than 1.4 million people across Scotland. That figure included the allocation of £456 million to the Scottish child payment. That benefit, which is unique to Scotland, helped around 328,000 under-16s and lifted an estimated 60,000 children out of relative poverty in 2024-25.

Following successful pilots, the carer support payment and the pension-age disability payment were extended nationally, ensuring that carers and individuals with disabilities of pension age now receive regular support in all areas. We also introduced the Scottish adult disability allowance, which replaces the UK disability living allowance and benefits more than 430,000 disabled people.

Scotland’s economy and labour market have remained resilient despite challenging economic headwinds. Scotland’s economy grew by 1.2 per cent in 2024, compared with growth of 1.1 per cent in the UK as a whole, and it strengthened from 0.5 per cent growth in 2023. Scotland’s claimant count unemployment rate was 3.5 per cent in May, which remains below the UK rate of 4.5 per cent, and our median monthly pay for payrolled employees in Scotland, which was £2,542 in May, remains higher than the figure for the UK as a whole.

Scotland continues to show the largest long-term reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of all the UK nations, and we are committed to achieving net zero by 2045. In 2024-25, we spent £16.2 million on just transition fund activities, brought the new-build heat standard into force, delivered an additional 1,623 public charging points for electric vehicles and restored 14,860 hectares of degraded peatland. We also passed the landmark Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024, thereby establishing the legislative framework to support Scotland’s transition to a zero waste and circular economy. That is complemented by our circular economy and waste route map to 2030, which will help us to achieve our sustainable resource and climate goals.

We have continued to support and deliver genuine efficiencies across the public sector through a range of programmes to save on corporate expenditure, including the national collaborative procurement framework’s commercial value for money and digital programmes, which are securing cost-avoiding and cash-releasing savings that are expected to reach more than £0.5 billion by the end of 2026-27.

In 2024-25, we also launched property controls guidance to support a more efficient approach to public sector property management and to optimise costs and estate footprint. Since 2022, enhanced recruitment controls have controlled growth in the total Scottish Government workforce, reducing it by 5 per cent between March 2022 and March 2025.

Turning to the 2024-25 provisional outturn, I am pleased to confirm that the Scottish Government has once again delivered a balanced budget, with a provisional fiscal outturn of £52.1 billion against a total fiscal budget of £52.7 billion. The remaining £557 million, which represents just over 1 per cent of our total budget, will be carried forward in full through the Scotland reserve if that figure is confirmed at the final outturn. That incorporates £501 million of fiscal resource, £31 million of capital and £25 million of financial transactions.

I again reiterate that there will be no loss of spending power to the Scottish Government as a result, with that funding supporting 2025-26 costs. We cannot overspend. The fiscal rules that we must comply with mean that we must plan for a modest underspend—we must be able to mitigate the risk of post year-end audit adjustments and to manage any late movements in demand-led programmes and fully devolved tax receipts, which have occurred in previous years.

We have already made clear to Parliament our intention to set aside the majority of that underspend as part of our spring budget revision, with £350 million planned to be held within the finance and local government portfolio. Indeed, we operate on an annualised budget, but our activities do not abruptly end on 31 March and then commence anew on 1 April each year. Smoothing through the Scotland reserve over financial years is therefore to be expected. The fact that we have managed the position to a 1 per cent underspend underlines the Government’s financial competence.

I also remind colleagues that there remains a non-cash element of our budget allocation, which is utilised for accounting adjustments, such as depreciation. That element is ring fenced and cannot be used to support day-to-day spending. As non-cash expenditure, it does not flow through the Scotland reserve and is therefore excluded from the headline provisional outturn results. For 2024-25, that shows an underspend of £738 million against a budget of £1.8 billion. A large proportion of that relates to non-cash consequentials for student loan impairments, which are simply not required at the same level in Scotland because of our policy of free university tuition.

The figures that I have reported to Parliament today remain provisional, as they are subject to change pending completion of the 2024-25 year-end audits. Finalised figures will be reported as usual in the annual Scottish Government consolidated accounts and a statement of total outturn later this financial year. I commend today’s figures to Parliament.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I thank the Minister for Public Finance for advance sight of his statement. We know that the Government does not like being reminded that, in recent years, it has secured record settlements from Westminster and that it is duty bound to balance its budget. At a time of Scottish National Party cuts—to areas such as colleges and employability schemes—and tax rises, we have found out from today’s provisional outturn report that there is a growing underspend as a result of decisions taken by Scottish ministers.

The SNP has repeatedly underspent its budget, and it has done that this year to the tune of £557 million, which is almost double the figure of the previous year. Ministers could have put that money to good use. It could have met our repeated calls for the passing on of rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in full. That would have saved jobs and businesses that are now lost, and delivered tax receipts, which are now faltering. It could have provided support to Scotland’s underfunded councils, which were this year forced to impose double-digit council tax increases. That would have allowed hard-pressed households to save money.

Today’s report also proves that ministers continue to pursue the wrong economic and fiscal priorities, with the Government confirming the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s projection of an £851 million shortfall in Scotland’s tax take. That is a black hole that will have to be reckoned with in 2027 and 2028.

Is it not, therefore, deeply regrettable that money that could have been spent last year on saving jobs, supporting councils and delivering growth to drive much needed tax revenues will now be spent in future years on the negative social and economic costs of those repeated SNP policy failures and misplaced priorities? [ Interruption .]

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Murdo Fraser is applauding—I thought that he knew better.

It is quite embarrassing to listen to Craig Hoy demonstrate his complete inability to understand the fundamental concepts of today’s statement. He does, or should, understand that that funding is not lost—it simply moves into this year’s budget. He should also understand that the underspend is just over 1 per cent of the total budget that we have to spend. It is actually less than the equivalent underspend of 1.3 per cent in England, where his party was in control for most of that year. He will understand that that money flows into 2025-26 to support the budget that we are taking forward this year.

None of that money is lost. Craig Hoy clearly does not understand how that works or the management that goes into steering the underspend in the budget outturn to within 1 per cent of the total budget. That is just another demonstration of why the Conservative Party, with Craig Hoy pretending to be its finance spokesperson, is not fit for office in this Parliament.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. I must say that I find it increasingly worrying that, over recent weeks, the SNP has opposed above-average increases in spending on defence, given the headlines that we have seen in recent days.

It is thanks to the Labour Government’s record investment that the signs are good and that we will perhaps not have a chaotic in-year emergency budget this year. However, given the SNP’s financial record, who knows? The question is now about delivery. Statistics that came out today—the First Minister is nodding, so he must know what is coming—show that we have atrocious accident and emergency waiting times, the worst cancer waiting times on record, domestic abuse near a 50-year high, and plummeting house-building rates. It is obvious that, under the SNP, Scotland is going in the wrong direction. What is the SNP going to do to turn Labour’s record investment into delivery?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Michael Marra knows that this Government is completely focused on delivery and that we make it our highest priority to meet our objectives. He should know—this was in my statement—that Scotland’s economy grew faster than that of the rest of the UK last year and that Scotland has significantly lower unemployment and higher average earnings than the rest of the UK. The budget is delivering economic growth.

On our other priorities, I have already outlined Scotland’s climate situation compared with that of the rest of the UK. We continue to be a leader in that regard. On public services, we are absolutely focused on tackling those waiting lists, which are too high. The Government has committed to bringing them down significantly over the coming months, and we will continue to focus on that.

On the resources that we have on our plate, the uncertainty that comes with the way that the UK Government operates its budget, with the late adjustments and consequentials, makes things difficult. Despite that, however, we manage to allocate resources as appropriate to deliver for the people of Scotland, and we will continue to do so.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

The minister highlighted that Scotland has higher economic growth than the rest of the UK. Can he outline areas of expenditure in the outturn for 2024-25 that have helped to create that competitive economic advantage for the Scottish economy?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Yes, I can. The Scottish Government has sought to secure and leverage competitive advantage for our economy through our budget and priorities for growth. On the offshore wind sector, for example, the 2024-25 outturn shows that we supported the green economy and future jobs by kick-starting our commitment of up to £500 million to anchor a new offshore wind supply chain in Scotland. That has leveraged in private capital investment such as Sumitomo’s £350 million cable factory investment at Nigg. We will continue to build on that to unlock growth and innovation across all sectors of our economy in 2025-26.

We also continue to support the roll-out of improved digital connectivity in Scotland by extending gigabit-capable fibre networks right across the country. We have created the conditions for Scotland to be at the heart of the green technology revolution, as well as better connecting our citizens to one other and to digital public services.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

According to the figures that we have just seen from the Government, the underspend in the Deputy First Minister’s economy and Gaelic portfolio is £106 million. That is a staggering 7.4 per cent of the total budget in that department. It is responsible for growing the economy, for the enterprise networks and for VisitScotland, all of which have seen their budgets slashed by the SNP in recent years. If growing the economy is so vital to the Government, how does the minister explain that underspend in that vital spending department?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

There are a few technical reasons for that. There is the redress, relations and response underspend of £36 million, which followed a reclassification by the Office for National Statistics post the year end. There is also an underspend of £18 million in relation to the Scottish National Investment Bank. I am sure that Murdo Fraser understands that, when deals are being taken forward at the end of the year, we do not want to rush into them; we want to make sure that we do them properly in the interest of making the investment effective. If such deals slip into the following year, that is absolutely to be understood, because they are significant capital investments.

There was also a slight underspend in relation to the city and regional deals programme. Again, given the nature of those multiple programmes across the country, we would expect there to be potential for some slippage in some of those investments.

I think that that answers the questions that Murdo Fraser raised.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Will the cabinet secretary advise whether revised fiscal rules from the UK Government would help borrowing for capital investment?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

It is important that we have the ability to take forward capital investment. The rules that the UK Government has in place can make that a challenge. There have been fluctuations in capital budgets over a number of years, which have involved reductions then reinstatements. That has been problematic for our ability to predict and understand how we can adequately support the programme of investment that we rightly take forward on behalf of the people of Scotland.

It is important that we have stability when it comes to capital budgets and that we are able to plan adequately and securely into the future. The lack of borrowing powers for the Scottish Government makes that difficult. We call on the UK Government to provide additional borrowing powers, to enable us to plan and execute our very important investments.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

The finance and local government line shows a £324 million underspend, which represents around 40 per cent of the total cash underspend in the statement. All members will be aware of how hard pressed local services are, the fact that there was a council tax freeze this year, and the requirement to find additional money for pay, especially for social care workers. Three hundred million pounds would have made a substantial contribution towards dealing with those issues, so why is there an underspend of such a substantial sum in that critical area, given the importance of local services?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I would have thought that Daniel Johnson would have taken the time to interrogate the numbers a bit more thoroughly. He would have heard me mention in my statement the £350 million underspend that was planned from the spring budget revision in January and carried forward into next year. That sits in the finance and local government budget line.

In fact, local government overspent by £22 million in 2023-24, as a consequence of the late approval of the relevant local government pay deal. Far from the situation that Daniel Johnson outlined, we have slightly overspent in supporting local government on the pay of its workers. The £350 million that he talked about was identified earlier in the year as part of a planned underspend to support the 2025-26 budget.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Can the minister confirm that the £557 million of resource underspend is only around four days of Scottish Government expenditure, which shows the tight levels of financial management by the Government, for which he should be commended. All of that has rolled forward into the current financial year.

However, capital borrowing was £193 million less than expected, due to emerging underspends. Does the minister agree that having shovel-ready projects in place, such as pothole repairs, which can be undertaken fairly quickly in most places, would help to ensure that capital is fully utilised, should capital underspends emerge in the future?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I thank Kenny Gibson for his kind words about the job that we have done. He is absolutely right: the underspend is only just over 1 per cent of the total spend. As I have said, that is a lower underspend percentage than occurred across the rest of the UK.

On capital projects, I wish it were that easy. Those budgets are allocated to portfolios, then to agencies and projects. Those projects do not stop on 31 March then restart in April. They continue from day to day. There is some slippage in the expenditure on those projects. However, the work does not stop, and the expenditure needs to carry on. The ability to pull that money back in the last few days of the financial year, allocate it to something else then reallocate it in April would be problematic, to say the least. However, I take Kenneth Gibson’s point: the ability to have shovel-ready projects—which we have—that can be brought in when we have additional money to spend is an important step to take.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

The minister will be aware of my concern that, because many of the Government’s costs are fixed at the start of the year, the annual path-to-balance reallocation exercises place a disproportionate burden on particular portfolios—primarily health and education. Allowing for the fact that there will be an election before then, will the Government consider publishing alongside next year’s outturn statement a multiyear analysis of the impact of the path-to-balance exercises and in which portfolios they fall, perhaps covering the five financial years of this parliamentary session?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The member will be aware that the health budget is protected and that we pass on all consequentials to health.

Health is of course by far the biggest area of expenditure within the Scottish Government’s budget, and so the focus on managing health budgets in-year is clearly critical to ensuring that we achieve the path to balance and balance our budget as we are required to. Many moving parts, as a result of consequentials or other changes in-year, can influence those budgets. However, in the interests of transparency, we are always keen to make as much information as possible available to Parliament and others.

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

At some point, we are going to have to have an honest debate in this Parliament about the net income forecast for Scottish income tax, which has reduced by £850 million on outturn versus forecast.

However, there is another line that I was very concerned to read about in this outturn, in relation to carers allowance reduction. There is more than £100 million of underspend in that line, yet so many carers in Scotland are facing the harsh reality of difficult finances due to the cliff edge of earnings in relation to receiving that benefit. Is the Scottish Government willing to look at the thresholds, and at whether any of that underspend could be used in this financial year or ring fenced to support carers in the vital role that they perform, instead of that money disappearing into what is clearly next year’s fiscal black hole, which is sitting in the Scottish Government’s accounts?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

First, on the technical point, Jamie Greene is right to identify that carers allowance was underspent by around £100 million. However, if he looks further down the figures, he will recognise that carer support payments were overspent by almost £100 million. The reason for that is that the first of those is a Department for Work and Pensions payment, which was then transferred to Social Security Scotland, which then picked up the payment and incurred that cost as a consequence. It is therefore very far from being the differential that he identifies.

We are proud of the support that we provide to carers in Scotland. However, we are of course always keen to have conversations to see what else we can do to support them in the very important role that they perform.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister set out the additional flexibilities contained within the fiscal framework and explain whether he believes that they are sufficient to give the Scottish Government the financial levers that it requires?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Under the fiscal framework, the Scottish Government can access limited resource and capital borrowing and has the use of the Scotland reserve. The Scottish Government’s borrowing powers, though improved by the fiscal framework, remain extremely limited. For example, resource borrowing is still limited to addressing forecast errors in tax or social security payments and cannot be used to fund day-to-day expenditure, and the current cap on the Scotland reserve limits our ability to carry forward funds into future financial years.

We want to work with the UK Government to secure greater fiscal flexibilities to support sound financial management and to deal with volatility. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government will discuss those issues further at the forthcoming meeting of the UK finance interministerial standing committee.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In relation to the answer that the minister gave to Kenny Gibson when he asked about infrastructure, why specifically is there a £72 million underspend in the transport portfolio when there are so many pressing issues, such as the dualling of the A9 and various other upgrades?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The £72 million capital underspend in transport and the £27 million underspend on the trunk road network reflect forecasts across a range of programmes, including the M8 Woodside viaduct propping project, that are facing a number of challenges through the financial year because of the complexities of those works.

If Liz Smith has not gone to visit those works, I encourage her to do so in order to learn about the challenges that doing that work in a city centre location presents to the excellent teams that are carrying it forward. That work is of course reprogrammed into 2025-26, so whether there is a delay or not, it does not affect the amount of work that gets done.

There is also a rail services underspend: Network Rail has underspent £22 million on operations, maintenance and renewals. That is driven by the rephasing of national Network Rail programmes, where costs are allocated to the Scotland region, although it is obviously something that we carry out ourselves.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

The majority of the Scottish Government’s funding continues to be tied to decisions of the United Kingdom Government and is subject to high levels of uncertainty until very late in the financial year. Will the minister give a practical example of the consequences of Scotland’s funding being tied to Westminster?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

There is always uncertainty in our funding envelope until quite late in the year, given the way in which the devolved Governments’ finances work. Receiving clarity on the overall funding position from the UK Government as early as possible is beneficial for our planning, to avoid any last-minute budget reductions and reprioritisations. Although, in 2024-25, we received an update on the in-year position as part of the UK Government’s autumn budget process, which was welcome, an element of capital was subsequently reduced in early 2025, only six weeks before the end of the financial year. Therefore, we must always maintain an element of contingency to manage last-minute changes to our overall funding envelope, which consequently reduces investment opportunities.

Fergus Ewing (Independent, Inverness and Nairn)

The building at 48 South Street, Elgin was worth £275,000, yet the minister’s predecessor spent £3.5 million on decarbonising it. That was by no means a lone example of a project that was an utter waste of money, and the minister agreed that that was the case. Therefore, why has phase 2 of the funding been approved? Why is it going ahead? Applications closed at the end of May. Before making any decisions on how to spend that money, will the minister report to the Parliament on how he proposes that it should be spent? Would it not be better to spend it on dualling the A9?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I take on board the point that the member raises. As is the case with all spending, we want to make sure that it is done effectively and efficiently. I undertake to report back to the Parliament on the specific projects that might or might not be taken forward under that funding line.

Business Motion

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-18070, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for consideration of the Education (Scotland) Bill at stage 3.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Education (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 2: 1 hour

Groups 3 to 6: 2 hours

Groups 7 to 10: 3 hours 10 minutes

Groups 11 to 13: 4 hours 10 minutes

Groups 14 to 16: 5 hours 10 minutes

Groups 17 to 19: 6 hours 5 minutes

Groups 20 to 21: 7 hours 10 minutes

Groups 22 to 23: 7 hours 50 minutes.—[Jamie Hepburn]

Motion agreed to .

Education (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Education (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, Scottish Parliament bill 49A—the revised marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button or enter RTS in the chat function as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

Section 3—The quality assurance function

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 1 is on support needs. Amendment 1, in the name of Miles Briggs, is grouped with amendments 5, 165 to 168, 321, 248, 249 and 76.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

In the interests of brevity, I will try to speed up my comments during the rest of the afternoon.

I was pleased to lodge this suite of amendments following stage 2. Amendments 5, 1 and 76, in my name, would improve the bill.

Amendment 5 would require qualifications Scotland to prepare and publish guidance to support those with educational support needs in undertaking examinations. Amendment 5 would introduce the term “educational support needs” into the bill instead of “additional support needs”, because it is important that children, young people and adult learners with support needs for learning are all covered by these and other provisions in the bill.

Amendment 76 would ensure that that newly introduced term covers existing legislation for children and young people, along with other learners with additional support needs for learning. Amendment 76 is a definition of “educational support needs”. It deliberately uses a new term but defines it as having the same meaning as “additional support needs” under the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 and “support needs” under the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005. That is because it might be confusing to start using those terms to mean something broader in this bill when they are already well understood and have a meaning in their respective contexts.

Amendment 1 would therefore reflect the new terminology in existing provisions in relation to section 3, quality assuring the processes that additional establishments have to put in place to support the assessment of qualifications, particularly for those with additional support needs.

I move amendment 1.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

First, let me say a huge thank you to the legislation team, who have been working day and night to support members across the chamber with the amendments that they wanted to lodge. I put on record my thanks to my own team, who have supported me at stages 1, 2 and 3 of the bill. Despite how we might at some points disagree today across the chamber, I also thank other parties for the discussions that we have had between stages 1, 2 and 3.

At the heart of this first group of amendments is a simple principle: parity of esteem. Learners who require additional support—not only to read a qualifications document but to sit the exam, receive their results and progress afterwards—must enjoy exactly the same standing in Scotland’s qualifications system as every other learner.

Why does that matter? First, because the law already obliges us, under the 2004 act and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to remove barriers and not just to acknowledge them. Secondly, because fairness is meaningless if the format of an assessment or the way that its rules are communicated locks out some candidates from the start.

My amendments in this group set out to deliver on the principle of parity of esteem. Amendment 165 would place a clear, statutory duty on qualifications Scotland to communicate inclusively whenever it publishes anything, including exam specifications, candidate guides and appeals leaflets.

Amendments 166 and 167 would work with Mr Briggs’s amendment 76 to update the language in the bill, removing reference to “additional support needs” and instead using the term “educational support needs”, to ensure that adult learners with support needs are given the same recognition and support as children and young people.

Amendments 248 and 249 would carry the same obligations into the education inspectorate so that inspection reports, thematic reviews, consultations and recommendations are just as accessible and, therefore, just as actionable.

Amendment 321, in the name of the cabinet secretary, would duplicate the inclusive communication duty on the chief inspector of education that my amendment 165 would place on qualifications Scotland. Therefore, in the spirit of consensus, I will not move amendment 168 and, instead, ask colleagues to support amendment 321 to ensure that the inspectorate communicates in the same inclusive way as we will ask qualifications Scotland to do.

Inclusive communication is the gateway to every other reasonable adjustment—extra time, alternative formats, assistive technology and quiet spaces—because a learner cannot request an adjustment if they cannot first access the rules. Embedding an inclusive communication duty in statute would guarantee early, proactive support and consistency across schools and colleges, and it would help to develop a culture that is designed for all from the outset.

Scottish Labour will support Mr Briggs’s amendments 1 and 5, which would update the language in section 3 to cover adult learners and require qualifications Scotland to publish clear guidance on adjustments. We will also support his amendment 76, which provides the appropriate definitions.

Parity of esteem must be more than a slogan. It is a promise that all learners will have access to an equal chance to succeed. I therefore intend to move amendment 165 and invite the chamber to support the full package of amendments in this group so that parity, recognition and real accommodation are built into Scotland’s new qualifications regime from day 1.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I thank Mr Briggs and Ms Duncan-Glancy for setting out their amendments. I put on the record my sincere thanks to Scottish Government officials in the legislative team and in policy for all their assistance ahead of today’s large stage 3 amendment proceedings.

I am grateful to the offices of Ms Duncan-Glancy and Mr Briggs for working with the Government on amendments 1, 5, 76, 166, 167, 248 and 249 to ensure that they will strengthen the bill for people with educational support needs. Of course, the Government is happy to support those amendments.

As for Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 165 and 168, I would be happy to offer my support to amendment 165 as I believe that adding the word “inclusive” to section 25 would deliver on our shared intentions. I am grateful to the Presiding Officer for accepting my amendment 321 as a manuscript amendment so that a comparable change can be made to the equivalent publication duty in part 2 of the bill, as I would not want anyone to draw the conclusion that the Government was suggesting that the chief inspector did not also need to publish documents in a similar manner.

However, I am not able to support amendment 168. The amendment reflects provisions from the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, which would not work in the context of this section of this bill. I acknowledge that Pam Duncan-Glancy is not going to move amendment 168, however, and I very much accept the intention behind it.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Miles Briggs to wind up and say whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 1.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I have nothing further to add, and I press the amendment.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Section 4—The accreditation function

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 2 is on accreditation and quality assurance of qualifications. Amendment 98, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, is grouped with amendments 125, 147, 154, 156, 158, 159, 161 to 164, 169 to 179, 8 to 10, 193 to 197, 199, 200, 207 to 209, 225 to 228, 251, 253, 252, 260, 261, 266, 276, 277, 282, 284, 285, 288, 289, 304 to 311, 313 and 314.

I draw members’ attention to the procedural information in the groupings in relation to the amendments. Amendment 158 pre-empts amendment 159; amendment 161 pre-empts amendment 162; amendment 163 pre-empts amendment 164; amendment 251 pre-empts amendments 253 and 252; amendment 251 also pre-empts amendment 254 in group 11; amendment 276 pre-empts amendment 277; amendment 304 pre-empts amendment 305; and amendment 304 pre-empts amendment 306.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I ask members to please be patient and consider what I say carefully as I outline a number of the amendments in this group, which may take a bit of time.

The amendments in group 2 invite Parliament to address and resolve what is considered to be the bill’s central question and an important policy choice: will Scotland at last secure an independent guardian of standards in qualifications? Will the Government actually abolish the Scottish Qualifications Authority, or will there simply be a rebrand?

Separating the body that awards qualifications from the body that regulates and accredits them is fundamental, and my amendment 98 would do just that. Along with consequential amendments 179, 266, 289, 304 and 307 to 311, amendment 98 would help to ensure that the new qualifications body can begin afresh, with leadership embedded in a reformed vision and with new governance, while also being independent from the body that accredits and regulates qualifications.

That separation is critical to restoring trust in the system. Trust and confidence are central to the integrity of any education system, but that integrity has broken down—not overnight, not as a consequence of one decision or event and certainly not as a result of anything that staff in schools or parents and pupils have done, but as a result of multiple failures by the SQA. The starkest failure was during the pandemic, when the then Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, John Swinney, downgraded the exam results of the poorest pupils.

Young people are our greatest asset in Scotland. We owe it to them to create the best possible environment for them so that they can thrive. Experts have told us what that means and what it looks like. It means a new curriculum agency in which teachers and subject specialists can work in networks, together, to develop world-leading resources for a world-leading curriculum, supported by a Government that shows leadership and direction, but at arm’s length.

Colleagues will recall that every review that has been placed before us—the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study and Professor Muir’s report—as well as the evidence to the Education, Children and Young People Committee at stage 1 made the same diagnosis: the curriculum, accreditation and improvement functions are dispersed across too many bodies that do not always communicate and are not coherent.

Setting up a new body such as curriculum Scotland—a single, arm’s-length organisation that would steer what is taught, guarantee the standard of the certificates that flow from that teaching and drive the continuous improvement of both—is the remedy for that. As a reformed Education Scotland that would become independent of Government, it would deliver opportunity for all, support a broad curriculum, empower teachers to design and deliver that curriculum and embed coherence in the system.

Young people would be supported to learn, driven by their interests, aspirations and what employers need, not by assessment, as often happens now. Curriculum Scotland as a body could support that and broaden the offer on school-based qualifications so that vocational, academic and technical pathways are delivered, valued, assessed and recognised. That is why leaving the accreditation function in the qualifications body is not a palatable option.

The proposal in the amendments to move accreditation to a new body—whether to curriculum Scotland or another body—would help to deliver both scrutiny and parity of esteem. Currently, school-based qualifications—

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I am happy to take Ross Greer’s intervention.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Would the member join me in recognising the difference between accreditation and quality assurance? Simply moving the current accreditation function to any other body, such as the curriculum Scotland body that is suggested or His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education, would not address any of the issues that we have seen in recent years in relation to national qualifications, because the current accreditation function does not accredit—for example, it does not accredit higher history.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Mr Greer is quite right in relation to higher history, but he did not point out that, although the SQA does not accredit or regulate our school qualifications, those qualifications are subject to quality assurance by the very body that determines what they are and that awards them, which is the SQA. That is why it is crucial to create a separate regulatory and accreditation function, so that we can look at whether we want to accredit or regulate those qualifications in the future.

We are legislating today for Scotland’s young people’s future, and not moving that function from the qualifications body now, under the bill, means that, without separating the accreditation function from the awarding function, we cannot necessarily take those decisions in future. That is why we should have taken—and must take—the opportunity to do that with these amendments this afternoon.

Setting up a new body such as curriculum Scotland—a single arm’s-length organisation that could steer what is taught, guarantee the standard of certificates that flow from that and drive continuous improvement—is a remedy. School-based qualifications are not currently accredited, as Ross Greer just explained; they are simply considered for quality by the body that awards them, which is the SQA. We have seen what happens when the SQA thinks that its qualifications are high quality. External scrutiny is resisted until assessors whistleblow, the press exposes the scandal, and Parliament and Government have to intervene, as was the case with higher history. The bill is a chance to change all of that.

Some people have said that those who have been clear that a separation of functions is needed do not understand what accreditation is for, because SQA-awarded qualifications are not accredited. Ross Greer alluded to that in his intervention. However, that misses two key points.

First, trust in the system means that a body that awards qualifications should not regulate them. Structures matter.

Secondly, regardless of what is accredited now, at a time when we are claiming to reform the system, we should not miss an opportunity to do so in a way that is entirely fit for the future.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

We debated the issue at length at stage 2. I remind Pam Duncan-Glancy of correspondence that the committee and I received from Unite the Union, which represents the majority of staff in the SQA. The letter says:

“our members believe that further independence could be achieved with minimal disruption to staff, their stakeholders and represent more value for money if the new Qualifications Body hosted the accreditation function.”

Is Unite the Union wrong?

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that intervention, which I was prepared for. The cabinet secretary knows full well that the members of Unite in the Scottish Qualifications Authority would have preferred the accreditation and regulatory function to go to an entirely new body in the first place. In the absence of any planning, scoping or action from the Government or preparation for a proper qualifications system that puts young people’s future at its heart, Unite the Union recognises that a rushed job could be very difficult for its members, who have endured countless days, weeks, months and years of the Government’s dither and delay when it comes to properly reforming the education system. That is what Unite is not happy about, and that is why it is trying, at the very last moment, to convince the Government to do the right thing. As the cabinet secretary knows, that means moving the accreditation and regulatory function from the SQA into a new body.

Instead of supporting that, the cabinet secretary told members of the committee at stage 2 that she would take seriously Unite’s concerns about accreditation, that she would go away and think very carefully about it, and that she understood that the status quo—the function remaining in the qualifications body—was not acceptable. However, she brought along the chair of the current SQA to the cross-party discussions between stage 2 and stage 3. Regardless of members’ opinions on how impressive—or otherwise—one individual can be, in those discussions we were supposed to be considering where the Government would put accreditation, given that it had been told by the committee, experts and others that that function should not stay with the qualifications body. There is nothing in the bill that moves accreditation from that body into another body. That, to me, is a failure of reform—it is reform unfinished.

The Parliament has the option over the next 48 hours—sorry, 24 hours; I do not wish to extend the debate for a further 24 hours—to legislate for a system that stands the test of time and in which the accreditation body for qualifications in Scotland is able to accredit school qualifications in the future, whether or not that includes the ones that the SQA accredits now. If we are reforming the curriculum and assessment, we need to know that the body that oversees qualifications is in a separate place from the one that awards them. We should have taken that opportunity already in the bill. Separation would future proof the landscape and would create a coherent system that could regain and enjoy the trust of pupils, learners, teachers, parents and employers.

Our amendments to create curriculum Scotland—amendments 8, 9, 10, 159, 162 and 164, as well as amendments 6, 7, 180 to 192, 250, 74, 254, 256, 262, 263, 264 and 312—give the Parliament plentiful options to do the job properly. I will come to some of those amendments and the rationale behind them when we debate a later grouping. All the options that we are presenting today give the Parliament the opportunity to create the structures for world-leading curriculum development and a separate body to host the accreditation of our qualifications.

However, if members are not supportive of our package to create curriculum Scotland but would like to deliver on the advice of experts and teachers and on the expectations of pupils and parents, they can support my other amendments, which would guarantee the separation of awarding and accrediting functions by moving the regulatory and accrediting function to the chief inspector’s office, to be overseen by a chief regulator. Amendments 158, 161, 163, 197, 199, 200, 207, 208, 225, 226, 277, 253 and 260, all in my name, would achieve that.

Presiding Officer, forgive me for cantering through the amendment numbers in the interests of time; I know that members will have studied the groupings and the marshalled list and will have an understanding of what the amendments do.

There are other amendments that the Parliament has the option to support to deliver on expert opinion and on pupil, parent and teacher expectations. Amendments 158, 161, 163, 209, 228, 252, and 261, also all in my name, would place accreditation in the office of the chief inspector without there being a chief regulator. I invite colleagues to also consider that option.

All those options would also create a committee for accreditation, to which the function would be accountable. That has been considered crucial by staff currently in the SQA and by external experts.

Separating the functions is not just the direction that Scottish Labour believes that we should go in; countless experts have said the same. I repeat that point, because it is crucial. The Education, Children and Young People Committee also agreed with that position at stage 1.

The cabinet secretary and members on the Government front bench are laughing. However, when we did not get this right in 2020, pupils from the poorest backgrounds had their grades downgraded. This year, there was a scandal after a history exam was allowed to continue even though experts raised concern after concern that, as Ross Greer indicated, the quality assurance function for that exam sat within the body that set it. The cabinet secretary and other members in the chamber may find that funny but I am sure that people who are watching the debate will not.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

rose—

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Did the cabinet secretary wish to make an intervention?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

For the record, I was not laughing at the content of Ms Duncan-Glancy’s contribution.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that clarification. I am pleased that she will listen to and take seriously what is being said.

The Education, Children and Young People Committee’s stage 1 report identified one issue above all others: public confidence will not be restored while the same body both awards and accredits our national qualifications. That conclusion echoed the OECD review and Professor Ken Muir’s report, and it is what almost every stakeholder told the committee.

Each source, expert and stakeholder, reached the same judgment: independent scrutiny of standards is crucial. The bill, as amended at stage 2, leaves the scrutiny function with the qualifications body. Our view, which is in line with that of experts, is that that position is no longer defensible.

Although changes have been made to qualifications Scotland—I thank the cabinet secretary and other members for working with us to improve what we can, including on the governance of the body—it will have the same functions as the SQA. Indeed, if the accreditation arm is left with qualifications Scotland, it will have entirely the same functions as the SQA. If that happens, there will be no independent scrutiny. Furthermore, as we will debate in group 21, there is nothing in the bill as it stands to guarantee that a fresh look at the leadership will be taken.

We have been left with the SQA—the body has not really been abolished, although notable improvements have been made to its governance—in a landscape that leaves the job half done. I am disappointed that the Government has not come forward at stage 3 with the changes that it promised members at stage 2.

I cannot support the amendments in the name of Willie Rennie or Ross Greer, because they do not deliver change. I am sorry to say this, but they are a poor compromise with the Government that falls far short of expectations and legislates for a review, not reform.

I am disappointed that the Greens and Liberal Democrats gave in for so little. They will argue that the Government has moved, but all that we have got out of the Government here is handout amendments that promise a review, which might result in yet another piece of legislation that will not even be considered during this session of Parliament—another example of jam tomorrow. Those amendments might also still leave the accreditation function with the qualifications body. That is very disappointing indeed.

We should not be legislating to have a review; we have had reviews. Furthermore, such a review should not need legislation. The previous reviews did not, and today, we should be legislating to give effect to those reviews.

I urge members to reject amendments that fall far short of reform and instead support the amendments in my name. We should make law today that delivers the education landscape that we need for the future—one that supports staff and pupils and is best geared towards ensuring that our young people are set on the path to success, with world-class education in a system that is designed to deliver it.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Did I mishear? I thought that I had just heard Pam Duncan-Glancy talk about making good law today. She and her party are voting against the bill, are they not?

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank the cabinet secretary—

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

Will my colleague take an intervention?

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I will.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I am very grateful—[Interruption.] I suggest that my colleague has articulated clearly the reason for her conclusion in the summation of her contribution. Had—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Resume your seat, Mr Whitfield.

This will be a long afternoon and evening. It will be even longer if we do not listen to the member who has the floor, who, in this case, is Martin Whitfield.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I am very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. I shudder at your premonition of how today might go.

Had members listened to my colleague’s submission, they would know that her conclusion was fully explained.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank the member for that intervention—I enjoy the unity that we have across Scottish Labour, which is not something that we always see across the Government party. I appreciate members’ support.

I was making the point that the Parliament has options to make the bill salvageable. If the Parliament supports our amendments to remove accreditation from the qualifications body and place it in a regulatory function in the inspectorate, in a new body, curriculum Scotland, or in the inspectorate without creating a regulator, which nonetheless moves it into another body, we could consider supporting the bill. However, at this time, I have heard zero indication that the Government is prepared to move in that direction.

On that basis, for the sake of young people’s future, for the sake of a bill that supports staff, pupils and a future education system that is best geared towards ensuring that our young people are set on the path to success, with world-class education in a system that is designed to deliver it, I urge members across the chamber to reject the bill as it stands and support the amendments in my name.

I move amendment 98.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Before calling the next speaker, I want members to reflect on the fact that discussions took place with business managers and members with key amendments about the time that is needed to move those amendments. We, as a Parliament, have agreed a timetabling motion for proceedings this afternoon and this evening. We are already quite far behind that, so I ask that members bear that in mind when making their contributions.

I call Willie Rennie to speak to amendment 125 and other amendments in the group.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I fully respect Pam Duncan-Glancy, but I must disagree with her this afternoon. The fact that she has presented a number of options shows that there is still no consensus, even within the Labour Party, about what the process should be in order to make improvements.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I hugely respect the member and it pains me to have to disagree with his direction of travel here. The reason why there are options is not that we have not come to a settled view. We came to a settled view—we all did, including the member—that change was necessary. The bill in front of us does not provide that—it just delivers a review. It is not my fault that the Government has not done the work in advance. We should be reforming today, not reviewing.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The process has been constructive. It is a good example of how committees can work well together.

We have come to an issue that is not central to the reforms that were proposed at the beginning, which, I remind the member, were about separating the inspection function from Education Scotland and creating a new qualifications body. Accreditation was not the big issue that it has become now. Ken Muir’s report referred to it, but only as a narrow aspect of that report, and the accreditation issue mostly affects post-school vocational qualifications.

My amendments today, with agreement from the Government, will lead to a more substantial review that will have a much more expansive approach. There was no consensus on the scope or location of the accreditation function that is currently provided by the SQA. The accreditation function largely covers post-school vocational qualifications.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Willie Rennie is making the case for what has gone completely wrong with the bill. At the stage 2 committee discussions, it was a case of the cabinet secretary saying, “We will take this offline.” None of the amendments that were being discussed—many of them in Willie Rennie’s name—was going to be pressed, because there was going to be proper time to properly discuss all the different options so that we could come together as a Parliament. That was entirely possible in the spirit of the stage 2 discussion that we had, but it has not happened. I echo Pam Duncan-Glancy’s comments about Willie Rennie’s willingness to concede all the ground that he had so successfully gained in the course of the discussions at stage 2.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am not going to explain the fact that I have not conceded ground or why I think that we will get a much more substantial reform that will be done in an orderly fashion, which is the right approach for a body that will be new. It will be at its early stages, so it needs to be handled with care.

However, I am grateful to Stephen Kerr for resubmitting all the amendments that I lodged at stage 2, which I withdrew at that point, because I know that he wants the whole Parliament to have an opportunity to look at the brilliance of my amendments.

In addition, during the bill’s consideration, concerns about higher history in 2024 were discussed in detail by the committee, and the oversight arrangements of our national school qualifications came into the spotlight. I believe that it was unsatisfactory that the SQA, in effect, inspected itself, and therefore I am determined to get an orderly change.

Although there was no consensus on the scope or location of accreditation, there was an agreement that the current accreditation and quality assurance arrangements were unsatisfactory. I think that the cabinet secretary has genuinely moved from her original position on that: she was opposed to change, but now she is prepared to look in a substantial way at making substantial change.

I was of the view at that time, and committee members will have heard me say, that any of the options that we put forward was better than the status quo. However, there was still no agreement—and there is still no agreement today—on what should happen next. That was in part—this point is crucial—because the landscape is complex. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary and other members of the committee for the further time and consideration that they gave to address the complexity of those issues.

My amendments in this group provide a package of measures to address those concerns. Amendments 125, 156 and 169 specifically address the concerns that have been raised about higher history by focusing on the quality assurance—not accreditation—measures that qualifications Scotland will have in place in the future. As a package, those amendments combine an independent review of quality assurance processes, an annual compliance report and the establishment of an independent expert group to advise on qualifications standards.

Amendments 170 to 179 seek to improve and enhance section 25A, which covers the requirement that ministers undertake a statutory review of the scope and location of the accreditation function—not quality assurance.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

The member said that amendment 156 originated from the higher history debacle. Can he explain why he chose periods of financial years rather than academic years, which would shorten—or indeed lengthen—the period for anything that needs to be changed before the next round of examinations?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

We will need to consider the budgetary consequences of any organisational change, and it is important to consider that in a financial year, rather than an academic year, to ensure that appropriate budgets are in place to be able to make that happen.

Amendments 175 and 176 would add new provisions that introduce a process that ministers must follow should they conclude, in the statutory review, that legislation is required in relation to the accreditation function. That process would require ministers to bring forward legislation within one year of publication of the report of the statutory review. Alternatively, the provision would require that, after the one-year period expires, ministers must lay a statement before Parliament explaining whether legislation will still be brought forward, the timescales for that or their reasons as to why not, if that is no longer what they intend.

Amendment 178 would add a definition to what “bringing forward legislation” means by setting out two mechanisms through which ministers could do so. The first is laying before the Scottish Parliament, under part 2 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, a draft order that relates to the accreditation provisions, and the second is

“introducing a Bill to the Scottish Parliament which includes or consists of provision in relation to the accreditation provisions”.

I hope that members are following this.

I know that other members are not content with the agreement that I have reached with the Government, so let me explain why I have done that. There are three main reasons. The first is that the main focus of the discussion and debate over the past year has been school-based qualifications, and the problem is that the accreditation team does not cover school-based qualifications, so moving the accreditation function would not, on its own, address the possibility of a future higher history scenario.

Secondly, I want to consider the expansion of the scope of the accreditation function to cover all non-SQA qualifications. Moving the current narrow accreditation function would not deliver that potential expansion.

Reason number 3 is that, under the new leadership and the bill, I think that the SQA, or qualifications Scotland, is up for the change, but it wants that to be done in an orderly way and based on evidence. The other amendments will not ensure that that happens.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

There are two important points about the higher history situation. First, as it stands—the member has alluded to this—the SQA determines the quality of its own qualifications, which is not a satisfactory circumstance. Secondly, although the accreditation function does not necessarily cover school-based qualifications just now, it could cover those in future. It could also cover other subjects that might be taken in school. We are looking at opportunities to broaden the curriculum, so we need to move the function now so that we can future proof for generations to come. Only doing that through a review without moving the function would be a problem. One of our amendments in a later group, which is on the role of the regulator, says that we should also look at the scope of accreditation and quality assurance. Does the member agree that we can do both and properly abolish the SQA at the same time?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I can see nothing in Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments about adding quality assurance for school-based qualifications into the accreditation function, whereas my proposed review would look at that. The review would look at school-based qualifications and moving them from quality assurance into accreditation. It would also look at the scope of accreditation, because not all post-school qualifications are currently required to be accredited by the SQA, and perhaps that should be changed.

Once we have considered all those issues, and if we are going to create new functions and scope, we need to consider where those are best located. My review would cover all that in an orderly fashion. That is why my option is better.

My amendments immediately improve the reporting on quality assurance, but they also deliver the two reviews that I have talked about. The first is on quality assurance and the second is on accreditation. They can consider whether quality assurance could move to accreditation, whether all qualifications in and out of qualifications Scotland could be accredited and where a future function could be located.

I genuinely believe that the cabinet secretary has moved; she accepts that change might be necessary. My amendments are the best way to achieve it.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Stephen Kerr to speak to amendment 147 and other amendments in the group.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Willie Rennie, for whom I have a lot of respect, has settled for something that is really poor. The Scottish education system must be the most reviewed thing in the country. How many more reviews must there be? All that amendment 176 says is that, at the end of the review, the Government must state whether it intends to do anything about it.

It is a long way from where we were at stage 2, when the cabinet secretary, because of the unity among committee members who represent different parties, conceded that something would need to be done much sooner than over a very long timetable, which is the view that Willie Rennie takes.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Stephen Kerr has talked about unity. He will recall that, at stages 1 and 2, there was no unity on the Education, Children and Young People Committee about where accreditation should be moved or on the wider issue, which he and I debated at length, about the bill’s scope and which qualifications should be covered by accreditation. Does he accept that there was no unity on those points and that, in a Parliament of minorities, it was incumbent on all parties to work with the Government to obtain a route forward that we could all come behind and support?

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I thought that there had been unity of purpose on the fact that we would abide by the expert opinion that the Government itself had commissioned, particularly the Muir report, that those functions should be separated. I am not a member of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, but that was very clear to me when I was at the committee, listening carefully, because it is an issue that ought to intensely interest us all in the Parliament. The education system is vital to the wellbeing of the people of this country. It was clear that there was a strong sense that something would have to give and that we would have to get together and not move or press any amendments at stage 2 but go away and have lots of huddles and discussion.

I preface anything that I will say in the process of considering the stage 3 amendments by saying that I approach all this with a genuine sense of regret. We find ourselves here at stage 3 of a bill on a very important subject—it is the only education bill of this parliamentary session—with more than 300 amendments. It will take a long time, and members will get very impatient with those of us who wish to discuss and debate the amendments, but, frankly, if we cannot take the time to consider perhaps the most important devolved responsibility that rests with the Parliament, I do not know what we are here for.

To be fair, there has been some cross-party engagement throughout the process, but I had hoped and expected that, by now, we might have move moved beyond the point of so many members feeling that it is necessary to bring back, rework or refine stage 2 amendments.

Willie Rennie said that I want the Parliament to have the advantage of examining the beauty of his stage 2 amendments, and, indeed, I do. In fact, Willie Rennie knows that I was a very enthusiastic endorser of the amendments that he lodged in the area of accreditation. When I tried to reintroduce amendments at stage 3, I discovered that Pam Duncan-Glancy, another admirer of Willie Rennie’s beautiful amendments, had beaten me to it.

It is important but of great regret that we have reached this point and are discussing the issues in such a context. I genuinely thought that lots of discussions would be had across the Parliament between the end of stage 2 and the beginning of stage 3. There was space and scope for us to come to some understanding about how to proceed together.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Perhaps it was Stephen Kerr’s support for my amendments at stage 2 that might have got me thinking again. Nevertheless, I will get to the guts of his amendments, which were originally mine. On the issue of the inspectorate, does he understand that there will be an inconsistency and, in fact, a conflict, if the inspectorate covers the inspection only of schools when many of the areas that will be accredited will be outside the school environment? Is there not a problem with the scope of the inspectorate and might that not be why my amendments were not appropriate at stage 2?

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I thought that we had all agreed during the stage 2 committee proceedings that any solutions that did not include the creation of a new public body would be inexact and would not be perfect. We had a long discussion. I well remember exchanges with other committee members about the necessity of seeking perfection when, in fact, we should really be aiming to make improvements because perfection is probably beyond us in every aspect of legislation in this, or any other, parliamentary session. There was a sense that there would be some inadequacy with any of the options that we were considering, which is why I am grateful that we at least have the benefit of now being able to consider those options again at stage 3.

I will make an important point about the essence of my genuine regret. I believed what Willie Rennie said earlier and did actually believe that the cabinet secretary was open to changing her position and that the Government would be open to refining and supporting a new set of proposals that we could all coalesce around. I thought that there would be meaningful negotiation and a shared effort to shape amendments into something workable and supportable, but that promise has not been realised in the way that many of us had hoped. I hope that members will respect my point of view, because I genuinely do not think that this is a satisfactory way for Parliament to make legislation in an area as important as education. It is a moment of profound importance when Parliament passes legislation on education.

In thinking about everything that lies ahead of us in the hours to come, I was inclined to offer some sense of regret that there are so many amendments and that I am the author of many of them—although Willie Rennie rightly claims the credit for some of them—but I cannot apologise for using Parliament time to consider what it would take for us jointly to pursue better educational outcomes for Scotland’s young people by reforming our education system. If we cannot insist on integrity, scrutiny and quality, we are missing the point of why we sit in Parliament at all.

In considering the amendments in group 2, I now properly turn to the very heart of the bill’s credibility, which is the integrity of qualifications in Scotland and of the institutional architecture that underpins public trust in those qualifications. To be direct, the bill as it stands fails to draw a clean and necessary line between the awarding and accreditation of qualifications. That is a structural flaw and is one that invites the same mistakes and public distrust that have dogged the SQA for 40 years.

That is why I am speaking in favour of amendments 147, 276 and 277 in my name, which go to the root of the problem. I argued at stage 2, and repeat today, that Parliament cannot afford to pass legislation that permits the new body, qualifications Scotland, to both design and deliver qualifications and then also to accredit them. That is not a regulatory framework. To borrow Professor Ken Muir’s precise words, that would allow qualifications Scotland to “mark its own homework”.

Amendments 276 and 277 seek to correct that. They would transfer the accreditation function from qualifications Scotland to the chief inspector of education. I willingly concede Willie Rennie’s point that that is not a perfect solution, but it moves towards something better. That is what Parliament should be seeking. It would establish a clear structural separation between those who create the qualifications and those who assure their quality.

That separation is essential, and it is not an administrative nicety. It is a safeguard for standards and a precondition for trust. The experience of the 2024 higher history exam, which was investigated by the SQA itself, is a textbook example of why such separation is indispensable. If learners and teachers are to believe in the fairness and rigour of the system, no body can be seen to investigate itself. Public interest demands independent scrutiny, not internal review.

International comparisons bear that out. In England, Ofqual regulates qualifications separately from delivery bodies. In Wales, Qualifications Wales operates as a stand-alone public body. It is only in Northern Ireland, where awarding and accreditation remain under one roof, that there is continuing dissatisfaction with the arrangements among school leaders. That was well covered in Professor Muir’s report, and we should learn from that and act accordingly.

I will speak briefly to amendment 147, which would remove section 14(3), which gives the Scottish ministers power to direct revisions to the corporate plan of qualifications Scotland. That power cuts across the very independence that we are trying to build around those institutions. If we are to have an awarding body that earns public confidence, it must be free from ministerial interference in its corporate direction.

Turning to other amendments in the group, I note that everything that Willie Rennie ever touches is eminently reasonable. It is eminently reasonable that he should propose an expert group on qualifications standards, but it is a halfway house and it might take us absolutely nowhere.

I will not rehash all the things that I have said about the nature of Willie Rennie’s amendments, but he knows that I am disappointed that we have ended up where we have. People who work, live and breathe the education system in Scotland deserve better than something that might or might not end up as an important structural reform of the education landscape.

Douglas Ross has proposed the creation of a chief regulator of examinations. I am sure that he will speak to his proposals, but they deserve the careful examination and consideration of Parliament. They would introduce a principle of external adjudication, giving learners, parents and teachers a place to turn when confidence in the fairness of an exam process is in doubt. I support that aim. That is a confidence-building measure. It complements, rather than duplicates, the structural independence that I seek through my amendments.

The real issue is not bureaucratic configuration, but the culture of the SQA, which has repeatedly been described by those who have dealt with it as arrogant, entitled and self-justifying. It is a direct result of a structure that allowed it to answer only to itself, and that surely must end.

Professor Muir was right when he warned that the reform of Education Scotland and the SQA was only a starter and that structural change must be accompanied by real shifts in transparency, engagement and accountability. Those are his words.

The OECD said much the same in its report on the curriculum for excellence. At the time, the Scottish National Party Government set great store by the OECD report. The OECD noted that Scotland’s education system suffers from overlapping functions and insufficient separation between design, delivery and oversight, creating what it called a confusion over roles and a risk of conformity of thought. That is very insightful.

Amendments 276 and 277 would answer that criticism with action. They would not tinker—they would make a clean break and create a coherent, independent regulatory structure. In doing so, they would align us not just with best practice internationally but with what teachers, learners and employers in Scotland expect and deserve.

The choice is simple. We can pass a bill that recycles the same flawed structures with new titles or we can pass a bill that learns from the past and restores public trust in Scottish qualifications. I urge colleagues across the chamber to think about the issues rather than just voting in the way that their whip has told them to vote. Let us choose real reform and make a difference. Let us support the amendments. Let us send the clear message that qualifications in Scotland must not only be rigorous but be seen to be rigorously and independently accredited.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Douglas Ross to speak to amendment 193 and other amendments in the group.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

My remarks might not be briefer than Stephen Kerr’s, but I hope that they will feel briefer. He gave us an extensive tour through the series of amendments in the group.

I came into this debate thinking that I hold some responsibility for the number of amendments that we have at stage 3—300 is a significant number of amendments to have at this stage. I asked myself whether I had failed as convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee because we did not whittle down far enough the 400 amendments that we had at stage 2.

However, as other speakers have said, many of the issues were fully debated at committee—I welcome that—but they were not resolved at that stage because of Government commitments to go away and do further work, which would be done on a constructive, cross-party basis. I will focus on the few amendments in the group that are in my name, but I have to say that I was disappointed by the lack of outreach from the cabinet secretary. I, along with my Conservative colleagues, had one 20-minute meeting with her. At stage 2, when the cabinet secretary pledged not to push her amendments and members agreed to withdraw or not move their amendments, there was an understanding that there would be more extensive dialogue than one 20-minute meeting.

At that meeting, I was briefly encouraged. There was certainly an indication from the cabinet secretary that she was willing to take on board the concerns from across the political spectrum, and there was a willingness on the part of her officials to work with Opposition members to bring forward amendments that we could all rally round and support.

I therefore ask members to imagine my disappointment when that did not happen. In a room just downstairs from the chamber, I had a reassurance from the cabinet secretary and her most senior officials, who are with us in the chamber today, that they would get back to us well in advance of the deadline for lodging stage 3 amendments with their feedback and potential opportunities for further interaction on amendments. Had it not been for the opportunity that I took in the tea room behind the chamber to ask the cabinet secretary what was happening with those discussions, I might never have received the full apology that I got from her officials that they forgot to get back to Opposition members to follow up on the promises and commitments that they had made.

I was deeply disappointed that the process that we went through in good faith, which was responded to in good faith at the time by the cabinet secretary and her officials, fell down the moment we walked out the door.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

On the offer to work across parties, specifically on accreditation, does the member agree that the meeting that we had made that quite difficult, because it was about promoting what the SQA’s current chair thought was the way forward?

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I agree whole-heartedly with that point, which Pam Duncan-Glancy made in her opening remarks as well as in that intervention. People have differing views on the current and, certainly, the former leadership of the SQA, but the meeting was set up as an opportunity, ahead of one of the scheduled meetings of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, to speak with the cabinet secretary and her officials. What we got in the end was a proposal from the current chair of the SQA—which, we were told, the cabinet secretary only found out about half an hour before the meeting. That is really not the way to do business.

The individual cross-party meeting, which the cabinet secretary and her officials took part in, was, in my view, going to be a place for individual engagement with the cabinet secretary and Government officials in order to come up with amendments that we could get behind. Sadly, that was lacking. That was the only element of engagement—that and a promise to come back to us. Had it not been for colleagues reminding me about the deadline for lodging amendments, I would have missed it. I just assumed that we had a bit more time, because I had not heard back from the Government. I stupidly trusted the Government to follow through on its promises and commitments.

I welcome the genuine apology that I got from the senior civil servant. I understand that the team is dealing with a lot in relation to the bill, but they made a pledge, a promise and a commitment to engage, and they let us down on that. That is why I resubmitted my amendments.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

It being the case that Douglas Ross says that he received an apology from a senior civil servant, why on earth are we doing what we are doing today? Why are we trying to cram 300-plus amendments into a bill that many of us in the chamber feel is deeply flawed and will not deliver on its promise? Why are we spending time on it now? Should we not have taken the summer to have proper discussions and come back to the bill at the beginning of next term, so that we could properly address the issues together as parliamentarians?

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Yes, we should have done that. Indeed, I still make that plea. If the cabinet secretary wished to use her prerogative to let us all away a bit early today, she could say that she will pause the bill at this stage. I am sure that she could have a discussion with the parliamentary business manager, who is looking at me with great interest—I would take an intervention from him as well. That would give us an opportunity to continue the engagement and discussion.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The bill has been rushed into our final week before the summer recess, but there have been opportunities to extend the process and the time for Parliament to debate what is a crucial issue. Willie Rennie, to whom I am about to give way, knows that it is a crucial issue. Although he believes that he has made progress—others would question that—surely, a bill on the education of Scotland’s children now and in the future deserves the ultimate scrutiny of this Parliament. Even if that takes a bit longer, we should do it.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

It is interesting that Douglas Ross is complaining about the conduct of others. Nevertheless, it is important that we get to the substance of this. Mr Ross has spent five minutes or so discussing what has gone wrong in the past. Surely he should use the opportunity to discuss what his amendments propose, so that members can consider whether they are appropriate.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It is fair to say that my relationship with Willie Rennie has taken a bit of a dip in recent weeks. I had hoped that it might go back up again but, based on that intervention, it has not done so. I gently say to him that, surely, to explain the amendments that I have had to relodge, I have to explain why I have relodged them.

When I withdrew my amendments at stage 2, following an intervention from Mr Rennie, I did not think that I would need to bring them back at stage 3, because we were to have collegiate and cross-party discussions to bring forward amendments that we could all get behind. Mr Rennie might not like to hear it, but, from the point of view of those who are still critical of the bill, it is important that there is an understanding that some of us on the Opposition benches went into that in good faith, in the hope that something could be achieved. Our frustration that deficiencies in Government, whatever those were, did not allow us to do that is genuine.

However, at that invitation from Willie Rennie, I come to my amendments. Amendments 193 to 196 do much the same as what I proposed at stage 2; however, there is a big difference. Again, Mr Rennie might agree with an accusation that is made against me—that I do not always appear to listen to my committee colleagues. However, I have listened very carefully to the concerns that they raised on the amendments at stage 2. The main concern of John Mason and Ross Greer, who sit on the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and others, centred on the additional significant costs in setting up a whole new body. Although I think that having a wholly independent body that had no interaction at all with the Scottish Government or qualifications Scotland would be ideal, I accept that, given that members have voted on a commitment not to establish additional bodies, including in the bill at this stage a provision to set one up would conflict with what the Parliament has already decided.

What I have therefore resubmitted is a proposal for there to be a chief regulator, which is one individual—one additional person—who would be appointed to serve under qualifications Scotland, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, and whose office would be staffed by qualifications Scotland staff, who would work to investigate the complaints that went to the office. We therefore would not have the overheads and financial burden of a whole new additional body; we would have only one person, who would use the existing resources to do their work.

I know that Willie Rennie and others are keen for us to make progress, but many members in this chamber did not sit through stage 2 and do not know the background to my amendments, or to the amendments that everyone else has lodged. I will therefore briefly make the following points.

My amendments go back to a petition that was submitted to this Parliament in 2013. In PE1484, Ian Thow asked for an independent regulator for national exams set by the SQA. Twelve years on, we still do not have that independent regulator. At the time, the Scottish Government said in response to that petition that it was not really a matter for it, but a matter for the SQA. The SQA said at the time that it was not needed because there was no issue with the exams that it was running and no complaints, and so there was no need for an independent regulator.

I think that everyone who has mentioned higher history today accepts that there were major problems with last year’s exam. Although we hope that that was not the case this year, last year shone a light on an area where there were multiple concerns not only from pupils and students who did not get the grades that they wanted or expected, but also from staff—and not only staff in the schools who taught their pupils and students throughout the year and expected them to achieve better, but also staff in the SQA.

We had whistleblowers telling us that something had gone wrong and that something needed to be looked at, but we got nothing. Months passed before the former chair of the SQA belatedly commissioned a report that was essentially an internal report from an organisation that was marking its own homework, even though it was peer reviewed by someone outwith the SQA and outwith Scottish education. That raised so many concerns that it prompted me to go back and look at how the issue had been discussed in the past, and that petition from back in 2013 seemed as pertinent in 2025 as it was 12 years ago.

I spoke to Ian Thow when I lodged my original amendments on the issue at stage 2. They have now been relodged, and he is still keen for his proposal from more than a decade ago—it was considered by the Public Petitions Committee but taken no further—to be debated and, hopefully, supported in this Parliament. I hope that, through my remarks and through the amendments before us, I have stipulated how we have overcome the issues around cost and the establishment of a brand new body that members were concerned about.

I also remember the meeting that I had with the cabinet secretary ahead of stage 2, in which she said that she was going to look at the art of the possible. I think that these amendments are the art of the possible. As Stephen Kerr said, they complement many of the other amendments, whether lodged by Stephen Kerr, Pam Duncan-Glancy, or even Willie Rennie himself. I may not be delighted by Willie Rennie’s amendments or how he has got there, but he has certainly made progress, in his view, in his discussions with the cabinet secretary. However, the chief regulator, independent of Government and of qualifications Scotland, could also complement Willie Rennie’s amendments and, I believe, the amendments lodged by Ross Greer.

Briefly, I note that amendment 193 establishes the independent office of a chief regulator. Amendment 194 looks at the core responsibilities of that chief regulator and, crucially, establishes the independence of the chief regulator from both qualifications Scotland and the Scottish Government. I am sure that the ministers on the front bench and their supporters behind them will welcome that, because, if there is another higher history problem, it will not be Government ministers that are held to account for it, but the chief regulator, appointed by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.

Amendment 195 is about the complaints process. It would establish a process for complaints to be made, investigated and determined if a higher history problem was repeated, or there was a problem in a different subject or in different circumstances. I believe that that would give students, parents, staff and many others more enthusiasm in relation to getting involved in an investigation of that type, and that, crucially, the outcome of any such investigation would have more credibility. Finally, amendment 196 would stipulate that the chief regulator should provide an annual report to Parliament.

I have tried, working with both Government and the legislation team within Parliament, to come forward with a series of amendments to complement other processes and aspects of the bill, whether they come from Government or other Opposition members. I hope that the Parliament will strongly consider supporting the amendments in my name, which, a decade on, could establish the independent regulator that has been called for by some in education circles for many years and provide the insurance process that will mean that our young people get the grades that they deserve in examinations in the future.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Members will note that we have now passed the time limit proposed by the Parliamentary Bureau, and agreed by the Parliament, for the debate on this group. I have exercised my power under rule 9.8.4A(c) of standing orders to allow the debate on the group to continue beyond the time limit in order to avoid the debate being unnecessarily curtailed.

I call Ross Greer to speak to amendment 282 and other amendments in the group.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Given that some of the amendments before us were lodged and debated at stage 2, I will speak to them today only if my view of them, and the position of the Scottish Greens, has changed since then. I will not repeat the remarks that I made at stage 2. If members are interested in my position and that of the Greens on those issues, they can check the Official Report .

The debate on the accreditation function has clearly become the most contentious aspect of the bill process, which was not necessarily what we expected when it started, some years ago. In the eyes of some members it has clearly become the litmus test for whether there will be real change. However, that debate has become thoroughly confused, as Willie Rennie set out at the start of the debate on this group. We might ask, “The accreditation of what?”, we have become so focused on matters of location rather than the function itself. As I said earlier, moving that function would not prevent a repeat of the higher history debacle that we saw recently, because, as it stands, the accreditation function does not accredit the SQA’s own national qualifications.

The package of amendments lodged by me, the cabinet secretary and Willie Rennie addresses both the function and the form of the accreditation process. My amendments will establish the separate roles of chief examiner and chief accreditation officer at qualifications Scotland, and they will create a clear separation between their functions. Willie Rennie’s amendments will create the review process that we will need if we are to decide on the scope of the accreditation function and the mechanisms to deliver it. Accrediting all SQA national qualifications properly is probably a good idea, but it would involve a huge change that we did not consider earlier in the bill process. It did emerge as a significant issue, but it was not thoroughly considered.

My amendments on creating the role of the chief examiner will come up much later, in group 22, but I will touch on them now in order to give members a clearer idea of the proposed overall shape of the organisation should all the amendments in the package be agreed to. First, I will run through each amendment in the group.

Amendment 282 will establish the role of chief accreditation officer. That will be an important step to further strengthen the separation of the accreditation functions from qualifications Scotland’s other functions.

Amendment 284 sets out that the accreditation committee will have oversight of the setting of that role and that it will require to be independent from the chief examiner. Although it will enable the sharing of information as appropriate, there will be a clear separation between the two.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member set out what would happen to the accreditation function should it be decided that school-based qualifications should be accredited?

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

The first and most obvious impact is that the capacity of the accreditation function would need to be increased significantly. The team that currently delivers accreditation within the SQA contains in the region of 20 people. The roles of other individuals within the organisation touch on accreditation, but, as things stand, that group of 20 people provides a substantial but discrete function. There would need to be a significant expansion of that group for us to deliver accreditation for national qualifications. That is what we should consider, but we have not previously considered it as a key point. It would involve such a significant change, and it would require such a significant increase in capacity, that the right process for it would be the review that Willie Rennie proposes and the follow-up to that review. [ Interruption .]

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Mr Greer, will you resume your seat for a second?

Too many conversations are starting to happen around the chamber. If members need to have conversations, I would be grateful if they took them outside.

Mr Ross, please continue.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will be happy to take Pam Duncan-Glancy’s intervention.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

In the interests of time, I will save the rest of my remarks for closing speeches. On the member’s last point, does he agree that the fact that the Government had not considered those circumstances means that it is yet again proposing a review, which is an unsatisfactory situation? We really should be moving towards agreeing today the legislation that will finish the job.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

In many ways, I agree with Pam Duncan-Glancy. I, too, wish that those issues had been considered before now. However, we should all take some responsibility for that; it is not just on the Government. The committee managed to get through the stage 1 process largely without addressing that question. To be honest, if we look back at the Official Report of the stage 1 proceedings, we all need to reflect on the fact that we were often talking about an accreditation function that did not yet exist as though it had already accredited the national qualifications. Collectively, our contributions to the debate missed the mark, and responsibility for that should fall not just on the Government but on all members. We must reflect on that. We have a process here, primarily through Willie Rennie’s amendments, to address the fact that we did not have that debate—that we did not consider that evidence properly—and we can now do so.

My amendment 285 will guarantee that the role of the chief accreditation officer cannot be held by the chief executive. Separating those roles will be a further safeguard. It will ensure that the roles and responsibilities are distributed appropriately within qualifications Scotland.

Amendment 288 is consequential to amendment 282. Importantly, taken together, the package will provide clearer leadership, with an appropriate degree of independence for the accreditation function within qualifications Scotland.

Amendments 305 and 306 will strengthen the independence of the accreditation committee by providing that staff members of qualifications Scotland cannot be members of that committee, although, of course, they could attend meetings as observers or participate at the discretion of the convener. That replicates my stage 2 amendments with regard to the interest committees, and I think that it is a far more important provision for the accreditation committee. I do not think that it would be appropriate for members of staff to sit on the committee that is accrediting those qualifications.

That is all that I will say specifically on my amendments in the group, but I will give a bit of brief context to how they fit into the wider reform. As I mentioned, my amendments in group 22 will require the creation of a chief examiner alongside the chief executive and chief accreditation officer. Although the accreditation officer will be accountable to the accreditation committee, the chief examiner will be responsible for responding to the advice of the expert group on standards, to be established by Willie Rennie’s amendment 125.

In summary, I believe that this will be a major change from the SQA in both form and function. We will have a separate chief executive, chief examiner and chief accreditation officer. The chief examiner will have the expert group on standards advising them, and the chief accreditation officer will have the accreditation committee, which will also be made up of external experts rather than staff. They will be required in law to discharge their duties independently of one another.

Those are strong arrangements for day 1 of qualifications Scotland. The review will give us time to consider the much bigger question of the scope of the accreditation function and to address that properly at a later point.

I said at stage 2 that, in this process, we might need to settle for the least bad option, and at that point I suspected that that option might be moving accreditation into the inspectorate, flawed as that would be. This package of measures is better than that. It is about having a separation of roles and functions, robust governance arrangements and a clear process for making the next big decision in a considered manner.

I urge members to agree to the amendments in my name and in the name of Willie Rennie, and, as we come to them, those in the name of the cabinet secretary.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I am grateful to all members of the Education, Children and Young People Committee for their further engagement and collaboration on the matters in this group following stage 2 consideration of the bill.

I am also grateful to the chair of the SQA, who—as Mr Ross alluded to—provided for an hour’s session with all members to set out the current position in relation to accreditation and to talk about the experience of staff.

One aspect that has been missing from the debate thus far on this group of amendments is the fact that there are a number of staff in the SQA at the current time and we are talking about their jobs. We need to do so diligently and with respect for the positions that they hold. Their trade union has written to the Parliament. I read out in my intervention on Ms Duncan-Glancy the position of Unite the Union that accreditation should remain within the SQA at the current time, and I think that that is an important point.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I have outlined why Unite the Union said that at this very late stage in the game, and I have reminded Parliament that the union considers that the function and the scope of regulation and accreditation should have been considered long before now and been moved into a separate body.

Does the cabinet secretary recognise that, while the Government has dithered and delayed over the proper reform of education in Scotland, the morale of the staff at the SQA has fallen to an all-time low on the Government’s watch?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I say to Ms Duncan-Glancy that reform is right here, in front of her. People can either choose to be part of that process or they can opt out. I have to say that it sounds as though the Scottish Labour Party is going to opt out.

Ross Greer’s amendments will further strengthen the leadership and separation of the accreditation function in qualifications Scotland and will link the role of the chief accreditation officer to the accreditation committee. A key theme in debates at stage 2 was the scope of the qualifications that accreditation will cover, and, as we have heard, Mr Rennie’s amendments will strengthen the review of the scope and location of accreditation while ensuring that Scottish ministers will have to follow a timely and transparent process with Parliament when that review concludes.

That approach recognises that further work is required to fully assess the scope and location of the function and to provide an appropriate mechanism for ministers to take forward a review and any future legislation that is required. I am particularly pleased that, through our dialogue with Mr Rennie on his amendments, we have been able to propose a pragmatic and deliverable way by which we can be further assured about the quality assurance and standards of our school-based qualifications—which, I remind members, are currently not covered by accreditation. I urge all members to support the amendments in the names of Mr Greer and Mr Rennie in this group.

Let me turn to the other amendments in the group. Pam Duncan-Glancy seeks to move the accreditation function to a new public body, which she seeks to establish elsewhere in the bill. I am not able to support the creation of an additional public body, as we discussed extensively at stage 2, particularly given the current financial constraints on the public sector in Scotland. In addition, creating a body at stage 3 strikes me—to quote Ms Duncan-Glancy—as being not an optimal use of good law.

Ms Duncan-Glancy also seeks to establish the position of a chief regulator to oversee accreditation in that new body. I fear that that would further confuse an already complex landscape, and I urge members not to support her amendments in this group.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

If the cabinet secretary does not support any of the proposals that Scottish Labour Party members or, indeed, Conservative members across the chamber have put forward, how is she going to give effect to the promise that she made at stage 2 to move accreditation from SQA and provide an alternative? What exact alternative is the Government providing today?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The exact alternative has already been articulated by both Mr Rennie and Mr Greer in their amendments, which talk about the need for a review and potential legislation in this space. Ms Duncan-Glancy is following the exact line of argument that she pursued at stage 2, in which she would look to remove the function without first reviewing the scope of the qualifications that are covered and without reviewing the staff and how her proposal would operate with regard to their contracts. To me, it appears that Ms Duncan-Glancy has not listened to Parliament. I have listened to Parliament and have reflected on my position, and I have engaged with Mr Rennie and Mr Greer to arrive at a position on which Parliament can come together.

Douglas Ross’s amendments seek to establish the office of the chief regulator for examinations. Given the enhanced quality assurance measures that are set out in Willie Rennie’s amendments, and given Parliament’s clear presumption against the creation of any new bodies supported by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, I would urge that his amendments also be resisted.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In speaking to my amendments, I made it clear that I believe that those provisions could complement and work with Willie Rennie’s amendments. Is there anything in my amendments that would conflict with those amendments and that the cabinet secretary could not support, or is it about a decision not to have an independent person in that role? It would be an independent person and not a body; the moratorium that she spoke about relates not to individuals but to the setting up of brand-new boards and quangos.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The issue, which Mr Ross and I debated at stage 2, relates to the fact that that individual’s role would be created in relation to the SPCB, and the Parliament has already expressed a view in that regard. I think that Mr Rennie’s amendments cover the challenge that Mr Ross sets out.

Stephen Kerr’s amendments seek to remove the accreditation function and place it under the role of the chief inspector. I have to wonder whether he has engaged with the chief inspector on that point and asked her opinion. Nevertheless, that would introduce unnecessary complexity into the landscape, and the inspectorate’s purpose should not be diluted in that way. I believe that, given the package of measures that Willie Rennie and Ross Greer have put forward, Stephen Kerr’s amendments, too, should be resisted.

Finally, I reflect on the fact that there has been extensive cross-party engagement on this topic. There has been engagement with the chair of the SQA and individually, on a bilateral level, with every member of the Opposition who has lodged amendments on the subject. I and my officials have spent time with them, although I have heard some challenges in that regard today. I think it rather unfair that some of the discussions have been characterised in the way that they have been—

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

—because I have shown willing at every step of the way, which is why we have been able to reach a resolution with Mr Rennie and Mr Greer today.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The cabinet secretary has concluded her remarks.

I call Pam Duncan-Glancy to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 98.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I have to say that I am left entirely deflated and disappointed by the debate. I will address some of the points that we have heard, although I am mindful of time.

I start with Willie Rennie. As I said earlier, I hugely respect him—I hope that he will permit me to speak while facing away from him so that I can see my notes; he should not take that as disrespect. I feel that the points that have been made have not fully addressed the issues that I highlighted. Willie Rennie talked about a substantial review. My amendment 200, on the role of the regulator, would offer that, while also moving the accreditation function out of the qualifications body, which experts and others have said needs to happen.

Mr Rennie talked about how the higher history situation would not have been changed if the accreditation function had been moved, because accreditation does not currently include school qualifications. However, they might be included in the future, and that could involve a substantial increase in resource or staff. Such questions should have been addressed by now. The Government has been trying to reform education since 2020 and has come only this far. That could have been addressed by now, but it has not been. That is the sort of thing that will have to be considered in the potential scope, and my amendments allow for that scoping exercise to take place.

The higher history situation happened because the SQA was able to determine the quality assurance of its own qualifications. That cannot continue, so we have to look at a means of separating out that function.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The member has suggested that the quality assurance function in relation to higher history was the challenge. She knows—and we have heard today—that the accreditation function does not apply to any school-based qualifications in Scotland. Therefore, it was not the cause of the higher history challenges.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

The cabinet secretary knows that I acknowledged that, but what I said was that those qualifications are not yet accredited. That question might be addressed in the future scope, and it should, indeed, have been addressed if the Government had had its eye on the ball and its finger on the pulse and if it had done the job in the first place, but that did not happen.

I see some front-bench members shaking their heads, but the quality of the higher history qualification was determined by the body that delivered it. That is not about accreditation but about quality assurance. The only mechanism for that type of quality assurance right now rests with the body that delivers and designs the qualification. That is an unacceptable situation and, at some point, that function has to move out of the body. Countless amendments that Parliament faces today could have done that.

My amendment 200, which we will discuss later—we can all look forward to that—is about having the role of a chief regulator and looking at scope and function. In the meantime, we suggest moving the accreditation function in order to separate the functions.

Willie Rennie spoke a couple of times about the need to do that in an orderly way. I agree that we absolutely have to do it in an orderly way, but the way in which the Government’s bill has progressed could not have been more disorderly. We have no order for how we are going to move the function, and the cabinet secretary’s only option at stage 2 was to say, “Right, nobody press anything—I’ll work with you again, and we’ll try to get this right, because I recognise that we haven’t done the work on it.” Yet here we are at stage 3, with the Government not progressing any reform to the current situation.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I remind Ms Duncan-Glancy that the committee asked me not to press amendments so that we could come together on a solution. I responded by doing so.

We have been able to reach a solution by working on a cross-party basis with two parties. Labour and the Conservatives are jointly objecting to that, because they were not able to come forward with solutions and work with the Government. However, I listened and responded to an ask of the committee and, today, we have the solution on the table.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I hope that we are moving to the denouement, Ms Duncan-Glancy.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I am getting there, Presiding Officer.

That characterisation is not what happened. The cabinet secretary knows fine well that, because there were difficulties with amendments, she asked every one of us not to press ours and she agreed not to press hers.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

It feels as though the Opposition parties are trying to lead the Government to a solution, but the Government is finding deliberate terms not to support that.

I see that Willie Rennie’s and Ross Greer’s heads are down, but it was for all Opposition parties to create a situation in which the Government had to bring forward reform. We have seen a weak version of that today, and I commend Pam Duncan-Glancy for the amount of work that she has done to try to get the Government to see sense.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Many members, including Miles Briggs, have done a lot of work on the legislation, because, as I said in my previous remarks, there is nothing more important than getting this right for Scotland’s children.

I turn to comments from Ross Greer. I note with much respect that he says that it was the fault of everybody—the Government and the committee—that we got to this point. The Government has the machinery of government. The committee was doing the best job that it could. We listened to experts and took much evidence and information on board. The committee’s report was pretty clear on the fact that we listened to the evidence of experts, and it said exactly what had to happen. It is for the Government of the day, with the resources of the Government of the day, to make good on any commitment and to say, “Okay—we need to come to an arrangement that everyone can support.” That has not happened.

Ross Greer said that we now have to take the next big decision, as he called it, and that his amendments would allow us to take that decision. The next big decision would be to support proper reform and to reject the Government’s amendments and those in the names of Willie Rennie and Ross Greer.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

At the start of the process, did Pam Duncan-Glancy know that accreditation does not cover school qualifications? Did she understand that? She did not make that clear at all. I have taken a lot of criticism today but, ultimately, the committee did not do its job properly at the early stages to have proper consideration that would ensure that reform would be done in an orderly fashion.

We need to make sure that we do responsible things in the Parliament. What has been proposed by Opposition members today is not an orderly reform. We need to have orderly reform for the sake of the new qualifications Scotland and our examination system.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I did know that the accreditation function does not cover school-based qualifications. I made it clear on the record, during the committee’s deliberations, why that fact does not prevent the conclusion that we have to separate the scrutiny function from the body that delivers qualifications—that still stands. If the member is suggesting that the committee and its investigations were so flawed, perhaps he may consider that the bill needs to return to the committee.

I urge members to reject a simple review and to support reform by moving the accreditation function out of the Scottish Qualifications Authority or the new qualifications Scotland. Several options are on the table from various members across the chamber. I point to amendment 200, in my name, which talks about a review of the scope of accreditation, which would provide the orderly change that Willie Rennie talked about. Although the cabinet secretary says that I have not listened, it is the Government that has not listened to the experts, pupils, parents and teachers across Scotland, who want us to deliver proper reform in education today.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy to please indicate whether she is pressing or withdrawing amendment 98.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I press amendment 98.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 98 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

: No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division. As this is the first division of stage 3, I will suspend for about five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We move to the division on amendment 98.

The vote is closed.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My voting app is displaying an error message. Can I check that my vote was registered? I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I can confirm that your vote has been recorded, Mr Choudhury.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 48, Against 70, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 98 disagreed to.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Before we move to the next group of amendments, I remind members that we are now substantially behind the timetable that has been agreed by the Parliament. I ask members to be mindful of that as we progress to the next group and subsequent groups during this stage 3 consideration.

Section 6—Working with, or recognition of, others

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Group 3 is on minor and technical amendments. Amendment 99, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, is grouped with amendments 75, 77 to 79, 83, 84 and 97.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Amendment 99 is straightforward. It fine tunes section 6 so that the duty on qualifications Scotland to co-operate with other public bodies and stakeholders is expressed in the same clear terms as are used for His Majesty’s chief inspector of education in Scotland elsewhere in the bill.

I move amendment 99.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I welcome Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 99, which helps to bring clarity following a related amendment that she lodged at stage 2.

My amendments in the group relate mainly to definitions. Amendments 77 and 79 add definitions of the interest committees, in light of the greater role that they are rightly being given, which has led to them being referenced throughout the bill.

Amendments 75, 78, 83 and 84 simply add bill-wide definitions of college teaching staff and registered teachers, which previously applied only for the purpose of paragraph 3 of schedule 1, as initially that was the only place where the terms were used.

My amendment 97 renumbers the place at which qualifications Scotland will be inserted into the list of bodies that are subject to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002, because of changes to that list since that act was passed.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Pam Duncan-Glancy to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 99.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I have no further comments. I will press amendment 99.

Amendment 99 agreed to.

Section 7—Duties when exercising functions

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Group 4 is on qualifications Scotland’s duties when exercising its functions. Amendment 100, in the name of Ross Greer, is grouped with amendments 2, 101 to 107, 157, 318 and 265.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Amendment 100 would require qualifications Scotland to consult such persons with an interest as it considers appropriate in every case in which it believes that it would be appropriate to do so. Amendment 106 specifies that the persons with an interest are those undertaking a qualification, those providing teaching or training in respect of a qualification and others who qualifications Scotland considers to be appropriate.

The purpose of the amendments is to strengthen the consultation duties on qualifications Scotland, particularly with learners and teachers, but also with the wider system. That would address what I think we all recognise is the historical failure of the SQA to have that kind of systematic consultation and engagement with the people who are most directly affected by the decisions that it takes.

Amendment 104 would add a requirement for qualifications Scotland to have regard to the need to operate in a transparent and accountable way when exercising its functions. That comes down to the challenge of a lot of what we are trying to legislate for. We are trying to legislate to change culture, because many of the SQA’s failures are cultural rather than structural. The amendment sets out a principle to operate by without being so specific as to restrict any necessary operational flexibility. I hope that the amendment sets a clear expectation on the organisation and introduces a provision through which it can be held to account.

Amendment 105 would require qualifications Scotland, in the exercise of its functions, to prioritise the provision of services in Scotland, so far as that is reasonably practical. That is to ensure that qualifications Scotland focuses its resources on supporting services that are delivered to learners here, while enabling it to still deliver services outside Scotland if necessary.

That would address the problem that we had with the SQA, largely before the pandemic, when, frankly, far too much focus—in particular, far too much senior management focus—was put on international commercial activity. I do not have an issue with such international activity in principle. It generates revenue that can be reinvested in our system, but the balance was not right. The amendment would ensure that we redress that balance and make it clear where qualifications Scotland’s priorities should lie.

I move amendment 100.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Amendment 2, which is in my name, seeks to raise the bar to elevate the ethical, professional and learner-focused duties of qualifications Scotland. If the Parliament is, as Ross Greer has just said, serious about reforming the culture of national agencies in Scottish education, we must legislate for values, including respect for the professional expertise of teachers and a commitment to the future needs of learners and the economy alike.

Amendment 2 would insert into the bill an additional duty that would require qualifications Scotland to

“have regard to any recommendations made or advice given to it by Education Scotland”

in two specific domains: the curriculum, and professional learning and development for those teaching or training towards qualifications Scotland qualifications.

The purpose is straightforward but important. It is to build a statutory link between the work of those who design the qualifications and the professionals who deliver the curriculum. That is about restoring a relationship of mutual professional respect that was badly damaged under the old SQA regime. Too often, teachers were left feeling dictated to by national agencies that seemed deaf to the realities of the classroom.

Professor Ken Muir, in his report “Putting Learners at the Centre: Towards a Future Vision for Scottish Education”, warned about precisely that disconnect. He wrote that there is a strong perception that teachers and practitioners were not adequately consulted or engaged with on the changes that affected their practice and that that has contributed to a culture of mistrust.

Professor Mark Priestley of the University of Stirling told the Education, Children and Young People Committee:

“The system is set up to justify itself and to celebrate its success, rather than take a critical look at what happens, and that is seen very clearly by practitioners working on the ground. There is a lack of connection as well. I would like to see a much more coherent middle layer in the system that actively connects policy and practice, and that involves practitioners as active members of the community”.—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 18 September 2024; c 30.]

We cannot build a credible qualifications system while ignoring that warning. The principle of professional respect is not optional—it is essential. Amendment 2 takes that principle seriously and would embed it in statute.

I support amendments 102 and 157, which are both in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy. Amendment 102 would require qualifications Scotland to consider representations from the Scottish Funding Council and Skills Development Scotland. That is welcome and, I would argue, an essential addition to the bill. The voice of Skills Development Scotland must be heard not as an afterthought but as a critical partner in aligning qualifications with the evolving needs of the labour market.

At present, Scotland’s education system has a serious blind spot when it comes to digital and technological skills. The report “Fit for the Future: developing a post-school learning system to fuel economic transformation”, which is known as the Withers review, described the existing skills landscape as “fragmented” and called for a radical change. James Withers wrote:

“the system was more complex and richer than I had experienced.”

However, he noted that the system was not focused on the user—the learner—and that, too often, it reflected the needs of the institutions, not of the people or the economy. That observation from James Withers is very important.

Nowhere is that disconnect more visible than in computing science. In 2008, 4,256 pupils sat higher computing; last year, only 3,745 did, which is far fewer than 15 years ago. Over the same period, the gaming industry, artificial intelligence and cybersecurity have become foundational for the global economy. At the same time, the number of computing science teachers has dropped, from 766 in 2008 to only 550 last year, which is a loss of 216 teachers. Those are not only statistics; they are a flashing red warning light on the dashboard of Scottish education.

Amendment 102 will not fix the crisis on its own, but it will begin to align our qualifications system with the workforce needs of the future. It will compel qualifications Scotland to take seriously the advice of those who are tasked with planning for Scotland’s economic future, and it will compel it to avoid drifting aimlessly into irrelevance.

I offer my support for amendment 157, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, which would give the Scottish ministers the ability to issue guidance to qualifications Scotland while preserving the agency’s operational independence. Qualifications Scotland would not be obliged to follow such guidance, but if it chose not to, it would be required to publicly explain why. The amendment strikes an elegant balance, because it would preserve the new body’s integrity and autonomy while recognising the legitimate democratic role of ministers in providing direction, particularly in times of urgency or crisis.

Contrary to what members on the Government’s front bench might think, I am not opposed to all ministerial influence, but influence must be accountable and transparent. Amendment 157 would achieve both, because it would create a feedback loop in which ministers could act, but qualifications Scotland would retain the right and the obligation to justify divergence. It is a well-judged mechanism for balancing independence with responsibility.

If we want qualifications Scotland to earn trust and deliver real value to learners, we must hardwire the principles of partnership, responsiveness and professional respect into its statutory duties. That is what amendment 2 aims to do and what amendments 102 and 157 will help to deliver. Together, they offer our Parliament a chance to do more than change the name on the door; they will allow us to change the way that the system works, and I urge colleagues to support them.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

A qualifications system works only when every learner, employer and post-school learning provider can equally see, immediately, the value of all qualifications and how they connect to the next step. The amendments in my name in this group would strengthen that clarity and embed effective co-operation between the new agency and the wider system.

Amendment 101 would require qualifications Scotland to have regard to the Scottish credit and qualifications framework in everything that it does. The SCQF is our common language: it is how a national 5 speaks to a higher, how a higher speaks to a university entrance tariff and how a college certificate speaks to an apprenticeship. All those are critical, not least to support recognition of prior learning. By placing the framework in the bill, we can ensure that our system is consistent and clear.

Institutions evolve, so amendments 107 and 265 seek to give ministers a narrow power, which would be exercised by regulations that would be subject to the negative procedure, to update the reference if the SCQF is renamed or its stewardship is transferred to another body. That would avoid the need for primary legislation and would maintain a straightforward signpost.

Amendment 102 seeks to add a complementary duty, whereby qualifications Scotland must have regard to representations from the Scottish Funding Council and Skills Development Scotland when it exercises its functions. By writing such a consultation duty into statute, we will help to align the school, college and skills landscapes and give young people smoother progression routes that recognise success in all its forms.

Members will notice that amendment 157, in my name, would have permitted ministers to issue non-binding guidance on such matters. The Government’s amendment 318 achieves the same objective with better clarity, so I will not move amendment 157, and I invite colleagues to support amendment 318, in the name of the cabinet secretary.

My amendments are modest, but they seek to do important things. They will lock the SCQF into everyday practice, keep Parliament in control of future rebranding and place a statutory expectation of partnership on the key agencies that shape Scotland’s learner journey.

I intend to move amendment 101, and I urge members to support the consequential and associated amendments in the group.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I am supportive of all Mr Greer’s amendments in the group, which build on matters that he raised at stage 2 and are practical and workable.

I also support what Ms Duncan-Glancy is trying to achieve, especially with amendment 101, which would require qualifications Scotland to

“have regard to the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework”.

Although I too hope that the regulation provisions that allow us to substitute another framework will never be needed, it is right to have those provided for in the event that they are required in the future.

I support all Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments in this group, with the exception of amendment 157, but I understand that she does not intend to move that amendment and will instead support my alternative amendment 318.

As Mr Kerr will be aware from stage 2, I am unable to support amendment 2. Although I agree that qualifications Scotland should work with Education Scotland and should consider all stakeholders, I do not believe that that needs to be written into law. A non-legislative approach, such as a memorandum of understanding, would be preferable. In addition, as we discussed during stage 2, Education Scotland is not, in itself, a legal entity. It was created by statute, and it is not an organisation with a separate legal personality, so duties cannot be imposed in relation to it.

For those reasons, I urge members to vote against amendment 2, although I assure them that there will be co-operation between Education Scotland and qualifications Scotland.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Ross Greer to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 100.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

I have nothing further to add. I press amendment 100.

Amendment 100 agreed to.

Amendment 2 not moved.

Amendments 101 to 103 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to.

Amendments 104 to 106 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Amendment 107 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to.

Section 8—Consultation with Strategic Advisory Council

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We turn to group 5, on the strategic advisory council. Amendment 108, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, is grouped with amendments 110 to 117, 3, 4 and 118 to 124.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

The strategic advisory council must reflect the full breadth of the voices in Scottish education and its procedures must be transparent from the outset. The amendments in this group would achieve that.

Amendment 108 would place a simple obligation on qualifications Scotland to publish in advance the procedures that it will use when consulting the council. Openness at the start would prevent confusion later and give the council the authority that its title implies.

Amendment 110 is an avoidance-of-doubt provision that would make clear that any regulations that ministers may bring forward regarding the tenure of a council member must stay within the limits that Parliament established at stage 2. In other words, ministers would not be able to use secondary legislation to undo the term-limit safeguards that colleagues across the chamber agreed to at stage 2.

Turning to membership, colleagues will see a series of Scottish Labour amendments—amendments 112 to 115—which, together, define the perspectives that must be present around the table. Amendment 112 would ensure places for those who are undertaking qualifications, for teachers in schools, for college lecturers, for educational trade unions and, importantly, for learners with additional support needs. Amendment 113 would guarantee that those with knowledge of business and industry skills are represented. Amendment 114 would give voice to directors of education, and amendments 115 to 117 would add representatives of colleges, the Scottish Funding Council and universities. Together, those provisions would give Scotland’s learners, practitioners, employers and system leaders a key role in advising the body.

Finally, amendments 118 to 120 would clarify that ordinary members may serve no more than three terms, preventing any risk of the council becoming a closed club while still allowing continuity of expertise.

Scottish Labour is also happy to support other amendments in the group, including amendments 3 and 4, in the name of Mr Briggs, which would strengthen the voice of parents and carers, and amendments 121 to 124, in the name of Mr Greer, which would strengthen the council’s consultation duties.

The advisory council must command respect from all parts of Scottish education, not by title alone but by the fairness of its composition and the transparency of its practice. The amendments that I have outlined would secure that aim.

I therefore move amendment 108 and invite members to support the remaining amendments in the group.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

Before I start, I draw the attention of members and those who are watching to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a former teacher who was paid at the beginning of the current parliamentary session by a local authority.

Amendment 111 says:

“members appointed to the council must represent the interests of children and young people”.

That arose as a result of my on-going interest in the UNCRC and genuinely listening to young people and children about what affects them—not just having them in the room when a decision is made but having advocates and representatives who can go out, find out what their understanding and desires are, and then reflect them in one of the most important areas that the bill deals with, given its overarching aim.

I intend to take no further part in this bit of the proceedings, other than to say that, given the rights of children and young people, they need to be represented on the council.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

From the outset of consideration of the bill, I wanted to attempt to make sure that the voice of parents and carers was put at the heart of the new organisation. I am grateful for some of the work that has been done on that, although I have not got everything that I wanted from the bill.

Amendments 3 and 4 would expand on and clarify aspects of section 9(3)(ab), which were inserted into the bill by amendment 129 at stage 2. That section provides that members who are appointed to the strategic advisory council must include persons who represent the interests of parents and children and young people undertaking a relevant qualification. Amendment 3 would expand that provision so that it is about the interests of parents and carers, and amendment 4 would further clarify that it is children and young people undertaking a qualifications Scotland qualification who are relevant here.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Amendments 122 and 124 would provide that the regulations establishing the strategic advisory council must provide for it to consult with the interests committees, any other committees that qualifications Scotland has and anyone else that the council thinks is appropriate, as well as with qualifications Scotland itself. The council should also have regard to any wider consultation that is carried out by qualifications Scotland—that is, it should not duplicate efforts in that regard.

The purpose of the amendments is to improve the transparency and effectiveness of how the advisory council operates to make it more impactful and to better shape qualifications Scotland’s decisions. There is clear consensus that the lack of meaningful consultation and engagement by the SQA was a major contributing factor to the situation that led to the bill, so embedding in law those requirements on various aspects of qualifications Scotland’s structure should prevent a repeat of that.

Amendments 121 and 123 are simply consequential amendments that would give effect to amendments 122 and 124.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Members will note that we will shortly reach the time limit for groups 3 to 6 and that we still have a further group to debate under that limit. I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 9.8.5A of standing orders, to propose that the time limit for groups 3 to 6 be extended by 30 minutes. I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 9.8.5A, the time limit for groups 3 to 6 be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Jamie Hepburn]

Motion agreed to.