Scottish Parliament, 25 June 2025

536 contributions from 54 members. The official report.

Business Motion

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-18135, 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 Wednesday 25 June 2025—

delete

7.40 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

and insert

9.00 pm Decision Time—[Jamie Hepburn].

Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Bureau Motion

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S6M-18133, on suspension of standing orders. I ask Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, for the purposes of consideration of the legislative consent memorandum on the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill, Rule 9B.3.5 of Standing Orders is suspended.—[Jamie Hepburn]

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I oppose the motion to suspend standing orders in relation to the legislative consent memorandum on the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill. I begin by clearly stating that I support the principle of improving animal welfare, and I note that, on the surface, the proposals in the bill appear to support that aim.

In a letter that was received only a few hours ago, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, Jim Fairlie, states:

“The proposals included in this Bill are strongly welcomed by animal welfare organisations ... as well as being supported by all political parties”,

and I agree with him. However, right now, we are not here to vote on principles, and I want to raise objections in relation to the opportunity of this place to scrutinise legislation.

In its letter to the minister, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee made it clear that it has not had the time or capacity to consider the legislative consent memorandum before the motion is due to be debated this afternoon. That is not a procedural inconvenience; it is a fundamental failure of parliamentary scrutiny. The Scottish Parliament is being asked to delegate powers in devolved areas to United Kingdom ministers without sufficient time to consider the implications.

The minister agrees that

“there has not been sufficient time and information for the Committee to review this.”

However, I question his view that

“the Scottish Government have brought this to the attention of the Parliament at the earliest opportunity”,

given that the Senedd in Wales was given twice as long to consider the same bill. Although we appreciate the minister’s response, it does not address the core issue of the limitation on the Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the matter properly.

The bill proposes to give regulation-making powers not only to Scottish ministers but to UK ministers in areas of devolved competence, which raises serious constitutional concerns. Questions on the matter have not been answered. Why is it necessary for UK ministers to have such powers at all? The bill will give the Scottish ministers powers, so it is not clear why UK ministers would need those powers, too.

What criteria should the Scottish Government use to determine whether regulations are to be laid by the Scottish ministers, who are scrutinised here, or by UK ministers, who are scrutinised at Westminster? In his latest letter, which we received this morning, the minister told us that there would be no set criteria and that decisions would be made on individual sets of circumstances, and he spelled out the guiding factors that would influence those decisions.

The minister has said that there may be circumstances where ministers will wish to give consent to UK instruments when policy objectives are aligned, but that is not a sufficient explanation. We need to know what those circumstances are. We need to know what specific criteria will be used to decide when it is appropriate for UK ministers to act in devolved areas, and we need to ensure that the Scottish Parliament is notified and given sufficient time to consider those decisions when they are made. The committee has asked for that information.

We have been told that any UK statutory instruments will be notified to us, but that is a political commitment, and we know that we do not always have time to consider UK SIs following notification.

We have also asked for a breakdown of whether powers in this policy area have been delegated to UK ministers or to Scottish ministers, under their competence. The questions that we have asked are not unreasonable; they are the basic requirements of democratic oversight.

I am speaking not to oppose the policy aims of the bill or the legislative consent memorandum but to defend this Parliament’s role. I do not want us to set a precedent whereby important decisions are rushed through without due process. I want to ensure that the Scottish Parliament retains its rightful role in scrutinising legislation that affects the people of Scotland.

Yes, Scottish legislation takes up parliamentary time, but that is the price of proper scrutiny, that is the price of protecting devolution and that is the price of ensuring that this Parliament—not Westminster—decides how devolved powers are exercised.

For those reasons, I cannot support the motion to suspend standing orders, and I urge colleagues to do the same.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I recognise any member’s right to speak against any motion that has been presented before the Parliament, and I recognise any member’s right to vote against a legislative consent motion or against the varying or suspension of standing orders. I recognise the right of any committee to determine not to report on a legislative consent memorandum, but I highlight—this speaks to the point that has just been made by the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee’s convener—the role of this Parliament.

I am concerned that, if we did not agree to the motion to suspend standing orders, we would be denying the Parliament the collective opportunity to consider whether to grant legislative consent to the UK Parliament. I do not think that we should deny it that opportunity. Let me be clear that the effect of not suspending standing orders in this instance would be to deny Parliament that opportunity, and it is almost inevitable that the UK Parliament would continue to press ahead with the legislation without our even having had the opportunity to say whether we grant consent.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I do not know whether the minister listened to my speech. The issue is not about this particular legislative consent memorandum; it is about the principle of the Government putting forward LCMs for the consideration of the Parliament and not giving sufficient time for the Parliament to undertake its duty to scrutinise those LCMs adequately.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I have heard the convener very clearly, but I do not know whether he was listening to me.

The fundamental point is that, in opposing the motion, he is seeking to deny the Parliament the opportunity to even consider whether we should grant legislative consent. I am not clear whether the convener realises that that is what he is doing, but that is what he is seeking to do.

I understand, and it is regrettable, that the committee feels that it has not had the time to fully consider the issue. I respectfully say that the matter is not entirely in the gift of the Scottish Government—the bill is being considered by the UK Parliament. The UK Parliament determines its own timescale; that is not determined by the Scottish Government.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I think that we are somewhat puzzled that the Welsh Parliament considered a legislative consent memorandum on the bill some time ago, but we in this Parliament were not given the same notice. The issue is not the content of the LCM; it is very much about the process and giving committees of this Parliament time to consider legislation properly.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I recognise the importance of doing that and, as far as we can, we will always do that.

On the point that the Senedd may have granted consent, I respectfully say that that is because it is considering the legislation in the Welsh context. We must consider its practical application in the Scottish context. [ Interruption .] I hear members laughing, but the fundamental responsibility of the Scottish Government, in the first instance, is to give the Parliament the opportunity to consider the matter in the Scottish context.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

How embarrassing.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I hear that Mr Kerr thinks that that is embarrassing. He is a great proponent of the Parliament having responsibility for considering such matters, but he wants to deny Parliament the opportunity to consider the matter today.

I will speak to the timescale to which we have had to operate. This is about a private member’s bill at Westminster. As such, this Parliament’s standing orders make it clear that a legislative consent memorandum can be lodged only when a bill has completed the first amending stage, which was the committee stage in the House of Commons on 14 May. The Scottish Government sought to lodge the memorandum as quickly as possible, and it did so on 3 June. The reason for that was precisely what I have just laid out—there had to be a process of engagement to clarify certain areas so that the Government was satisfied in saying to the Parliament that we think that legislative consent should be granted. Should we not have complied with that responsibility? Should we just have breenged in, having not even looked at the matter, and brought it to Parliament without considering it? I do not think that Opposition members would expect us to do that.

I urge Parliament to vote for the motion.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that motion S6M-18133, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on suspension of standing orders, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division. There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We move to the division on motion S6M-18133, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on suspension of standing orders. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. My app did not connect; I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Marra.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am not sure whether my vote was counted; I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Whitfield. Your vote has been registered.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am in the same boat. I am not sure whether my vote was counted; I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Dey. Your vote has been recorded.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division on motion S6M-18133, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on suspension of standing orders, is: For 82, Against 29, Abstentions 0.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that, for the purposes of consideration of the legislative consent memorandum on the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill, Rule 9B.3.5 of Standing Orders is suspended.

Education (Scotland) Bill

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-18059, in the name of Jenny Gilruth, on the Education (Scotland) Bill at stage 3.

I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible. I appeal to members who are leaving the chamber to do so quickly and, almost more importantly, quietly.

I call on the cabinet secretary to speak to and to move the motion.

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

Thank you, Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to address the chamber this evening on the Education (Scotland) Bill, following our lengthy and detailed sessions yesterday and today.

Before I turn to the content of the bill, I thank members for the constructive way in which they have engaged with me as we have sought to improve the bill. That includes around 16 hours of detailed and thoughtful deliberation on amendments with the Education, Children and Young People Committee at stage 2, the many discussions that I have held with members ahead of stage 3, and the open dialogue that I have had with members as we have sought to find common ground. Members have been clear in their desire for change and about the need to rebuild confidence and trust in our public bodies. That has been a key theme of the amendments that we have discussed today and yesterday.

I also thank the wide range of stakeholders from across our education system who have engaged with the committee and with me throughout the bill process. They have been instrumental in informing our deliberations.

Given that the bill provides the scaffolding that supports the wider range of education reforms, it has been vitally important to get its provisions right, and I think that we have arrived at that point today. Through the creation of a new qualifications body and an independent inspectorate, the bill enables a more responsive, trusted and effective national education infrastructure.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I agree with the cabinet secretary that the bill creates an independent chief inspector of education, but how would she describe the change from the Scottish Qualifications Authority to qualifications Scotland? In truth, is it not the case that the only thing that is really changing is the name?

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

I do not accept that critique from Mr Kerr. Indeed, we have spent two days of parliamentary time debating lengthy amendments that have sought to change the type of organisation that we want to have. One of the points that Mr Kerr rightly made at stage 2 and via amendments at stage 3 was about cultural change. That has to happen as a result of the legislation. I believe that many of the amendments—including some that Mr Kerr worked on—will help to create a new and different type of organisation that works with the teaching profession in a different way.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

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

Do I have time in hand, Presiding Officer?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There is not really any time in hand, cabinet secretary.

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

I will give way to Ms Duncan-Glancy.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Does the cabinet secretary admit that the new organisation will have the same functions and the same leadership as the SQA?

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

I do not accept the member’s latter point about leadership. A new chief executive will be appointed, and a new chair of the existing organisation was appointed in late 2023.

I want to come on to talk about, in general terms, the refocusing of Education Scotland, which also has a role to play. I know that Ms Duncan-Glancy was interested in that issue in relation to her amendments that would have set up curriculum Scotland, which I was sympathetic towards. That is why the response to a Government-initiated question that I published on Monday sets out the focus for the next steps on the qualifications journey. The response to the GIQ in relation to Education Scotland that I published in June last year set out a refocused purpose for that organisation, too.

In addition, we have created the centre for teaching excellence at the University of Glasgow, and the totality of our structural reforms will provide a revised and refreshed system that supports continuous improvement and helps to meet learners’ needs. Although the bill is rightly focused on reforming public bodies, we cannot lose sight of the people those bodies serve: the children and young people with whom the future success and prosperity of this country rests, and the teachers who work in our schools every day to provide excellent learning experiences.

Scotland’s teachers are fundamental to reform. Only with their support will we be able to effect broader change to improve our curriculum and our qualifications and to raise teaching standards. Ultimately, through the bill and the cultural changes that I mentioned in response to Mr Kerr, we can create a system in which our public bodies collaborate with one another, and with children and young people and their parents, carers and teachers, to drive improvement.

That is why the bill provides for a range of different voices to be heard on the board of qualifications Scotland. As a result of Mr Greer and Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments, the bill includes enhanced provisions that will ensure that the perspectives of young people, teachers and business have suitable representation in board discussions.

That is why the bill now sets out a list of groups that must be invited to participate in the production of the learner charter and the teacher and practitioner charter, which will provide greater transparency and accountability and the opportunity for greater involvement in decisions that affect education.

That is why, thanks to Mr Kerr’s amendment, the legislation provides a cast-iron guarantee that the chief inspector will have suitable teaching and educational leadership experience. It is also why, as a result of amendments lodged by Mr Greer and contributions from Mr Briggs, greater reassurance is provided in the bill that membership of the chief inspector’s advisory council will be representative of the needs of those who receive education.

It is fair to say that the committee and I have probably spent more time considering and debating the location and scope of the accreditation function than any other matter. I put on record my thanks to all the staff in the SQA who, as a result of our deliberations, have had to contend with a significant degree of uncertainty and anxiety over a period of time. Members put forward a range of different options at stage 2 that would have removed the accreditation function from the qualifications body. However, none of the alternatives provided a compelling case for change. Therefore, I believe that the compromise position that we have managed to reach through the amendments of Mr Rennie and Mr Greer represents a significant step forward.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

The cabinet secretary mentioned the accreditation staff in the SQA. It is not only as a result of our deliberations, as the cabinet secretary said, that they have had to content with uncertainty. In a letter to the cabinet secretary, the accreditation staff said:

“Accreditation staff have endured over four years of uncertainty, and it is deeply concerning that their future remains unresolved”.

How does the cabinet secretary respond to that?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

You have one minute left, cabinet secretary.

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

I have in front of me a letter from Unite the Union that I quoted to Ms Duncan-Glancy during yesterday’s proceedings. It said that relocating the accreditation team to another body would not deliver the outcomes that the Education, Children and Young People Committee or Parliament appeared to be seeking. I have to say that the inability of the committee to arrive at a decision on the matter at stage 2 has helped to continue the unease and anxiety that those staff have experienced.

The purpose of the bill is to bring Parliament together around a solution to the challenge that exists in relation to accreditation. I am pleased that we have been able to do that with not just one party in the Parliament but two.

We will now have the statutory review that I mentioned. Importantly, that will go beyond where the function is located to consider in detail the scope of that function. In committee, we debated that matter at length. Of course, within qualifications Scotland there will also be a chief accreditation officer.

Presiding Officer, I am conscious of time.

First and foremost, we need to pass the legislation, to fully realise our shared goal to improve our education system and, as a result, improve outcomes for our children and young people. I urge members to support the Education (Scotland) Bill to make that a reality.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Education (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

For the avoidance of doubt, I clarify that there is no time in hand and that members should please stick to their allocated and agreed speaking times.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I thank the Parliament’s legislation team and, following these late sittings, the wider parliamentary staff, as well as Government officials and colleagues across parties for the constructive engagement that we have had on many elements of the bill. I also make special mention of our researchers, from all parties, because they have put in a power of work in attempting to improve the bill.

During stage 3 amendments yesterday, Pam Duncan-Glancy stated that the bill was a “job half done”. I agree. After all, this is the main education bill that has been introduced by the Government during this session of the Parliament.

We should not forget why we are here today. The 2020 exam scandal brought into sharp focus the failings of the SQA and the Scottish National Party ministers at that time. The changes that the bill was meant to take forward to respond to a range of reports and reviews, including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s review of the curriculum for excellence and Professor Ken Muir’s report “Putting Learners at the Centre: Towards a Future Vision for Scottish Education”, have not been achieved.

I joined the Education, Children and Young People Committee last October, just in time for the signing off of its stage 1 report on the bill. I am sorry to say that it feels as though the bill has been rushed through the Parliament in the last week of term and that it does not reflect what the cross-party report envisaged.

As my friend and colleague Liz Smith has stated, the bill is now the sixth attempt by the SNP Government to reform education in Scotland. It is clear that SNP ministers’ policies and half-baked reforms are not delivering for our young people. The stage 3 process has felt more like the Scottish Government trying not to take forward reform rather than providing a bill that could deliver the full recommendations of the reports of the cross-party committee and Ken Muir.

In addition, the pace at which the bill has moved through the Parliament, landing in the last week of the session, is problematic. Either ministers should have introduced the bill earlier or we should have delayed stage 3 until after the summer recess, so that important discussions—really important discussions—to develop a cross-party consensus could have taken place and the bill could, potentially, have received the confidence of all parties in the chamber, as happened last week in respect of the Deputy First Minister’s work on the Scottish Languages Bill.

Scottish Conservatives have, however, engaged positively and lodged a positive and significant set of amendments to try to shape a stronger bill that would deliver the outcomes that we all want. I note Ross Greer’s comments in the chamber yesterday in relation to the difficulty of legislating for culture change. I agree. However, the failure to take forward as part of the bill important reforms such as the independence of the chief inspector and child protection reforms will not provide the reset or the independence from ministers that the organisations need.

I fear that the Government has ended up in a weaker place and that the bill has ended up as a weaker response, which is not what we need to truly set up qualifications Scotland as a new organisation with the strong foundations that it needed. The question that we are all asking is: what measures in the bill will restore trust? Will the new organisation have a new culture? The jury is still very much out on whether that will be the case.

Scottish Conservatives were clear on our red lines over what we wanted to see in the bill, especially in relation to a new independent school inspector who would report directly to the Parliament. That has not been achieved. I regret that the bill has not been the opportunity that many of us had hoped for.

I approached the bill in the hope that we could genuinely work to restore confidence in our qualifications authority and the inspectorate. It was hoped that the bill would deliver a meaningful reform for Scotland’s education system, which is urgently needed. Instead, it is little more than a rebrand of the SQA.

Splitting the awarding and accreditation functions of the SQA is fundamental to creating a system that works, as the higher history scandal showed, with the SQA not being allowed to continue to mark its own homework. The SQA needed an overhaul, not a cosmetic makeover, and the bill’s proposed changes fall way short of what is required to ensure that the organisation can operate effectively and that it is properly accountable.

I believe that we could have built cross-party consensus on the bill if the minister had given us more time, and if the Parliament had had more time.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

On the member’s point about it being only a cosmetic change, we are going from a situation in which the SQA has a single chief executive to qualifications Scotland being required to have chief executive, a chief examiner and a chief accreditation officer. The chief examiner would be accountable to an expert group, and the chief accreditation officer would be accountable to an accreditation committee. Does he really think that that is just a cosmetic change, bearing in mind that we have just passed an amendment that legally obliges each of them to act completely independently of each other?

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Those changes will be improvements to the internal structures, and I hope that they work, which is why we have supported the amendments. However, I do not think that they provide the radical change that students and teachers across the country are looking to the Parliament to deliver. I have been disappointed by the fact that the Parliament has not been bolder and that the Government has been complacent in its work with parties for the bill.

As I have said, the bill at stage 3 is not the education bill that it should be and, therefore, we will not support it at decision time.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I was caught on the hop there.

I call Pam Duncan-Glancy to open on behalf of Scottish Labour.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Scotland’s young people are our greatest asset, and it is incumbent on us all to legislate to ensure that the education system delivers the greatest opportunities for each and every one of them. Countless reviews, academics, experts, teachers, pupils and parents have been crying out for reform of the system, not least because, in 2020, the then Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, John Swinney, oversaw the SQA’s downgrading of the poorest students. That was pivotal in aligning the entire sector and country on the need for education reform. However, on a key aspect of that reform, which is to abolish the SQA, rather than voting for reform, the Parliament is being asked to vote for a review. A credible qualifications system cannot be run by a body that sets exams and accredits and regulates itself. That is a fundamental conflict of interest, yet that conflict of interest remains at the heart of the bill.

Scottish Labour offered solutions. We proposed separating accreditation from delivery so that the body that awards qualifications would not judge its own standards. We offered three routes—a single curriculum and regulation body, an independent chief regulator that would be answerable to the Parliament, or a stripped-back inspectorate model that would be free of conflict. All those proposals were rejected.

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

I am listening to Ms Duncan-Glancy. Of course, I have read much of the position in Labour’s press release, but the Labour Party accepted 40 Government handouts. It seems to me rather incoherent that, on the one hand, Ms Duncan-Glancy was happy to work with the Government on those amendments but, on the other hand, the Labour Party is positioning itself against the bill—which, I put on the record, will abolish the SQA. Is the Labour Party now in favour of maintaining the SQA?

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

First, the bill will not abolish the SQA, which is exactly why we will not vote for it. Secondly, we worked with the Government to try to improve the bill because we know that, if it is enacted, it will have a massive impact on children and young people in Scotland. It is our job as parliamentarians and legislators to scrutinise the Government’s legislation. The Government may not like the fact that we propose amendments and sometimes win them, but I am afraid that that is just how the Parliament works. We did our best to make the bill one that could be supported, but we cannot support a bill that does not abolish the SQA.

For the fullest consideration, there is much more in the letter from Unite the Union that the cabinet secretary has quoted that the Parliament should hear. As well as saying that accreditation staff have endured over four years of uncertainty—not just during the immediate scrutiny of the bill—the letter says:

“As detailed in our evidence submitted at Stage 1, our members’ preference would have been to have an independent Regulatory and Accreditation Body”.

It goes on to say that,

“Given that the optimal position of an independent Regulator has been removed from consideration”,

its members

“believe that further independence”

has to now be achieved

“with minimal disruption”.

The Government’s dither and delay has ground down staff and let pupils down. Instead of abolishing the SQA, the bill will allow the current leadership to transfer wholesale. On whether key functions will be properly separated from the qualifications body, Scotland’s young people are being told, “Not yet”.

We were told that the bill would rebuild confidence in Scottish education, but confidence comes from credibility, and credibility comes from clarity, independent scrutiny and transparency. That is what all the reviews suggested, that is what Professor Muir recommended, that is what the Educational Institute of Scotland told MSPs, and that is what witnesses told the Education, Children and Young People Committee. Incidentally, it is also what the cabinet secretary committed at stage 2 to delivering, but she has not delivered it. After months of scrutiny, all that we have is a review.

We need a qualifications system that is fit for the future—one that respects the efforts of learners, supports the judgment of teachers and earns the trust of employers and universities. We need a curriculum that is broad and inclusive, and we need an inspectorate that can challenge where necessary, but also celebrate excellence. On that point, I am pleased that the Government has delivered on the independence of the inspectorate.

When it comes to reform, this is a job that is unfinished. We should not have needed a review to be put in legislation. That work should have been done in advance—indeed, it should have been done the first time, when John Swinney tried. However, that work was not done then and the current cabinet secretary has not done the work either. We desperately need a system that is transparent, accountable and, above all, independent—one in which the SQA is abolished and scrutiny is protected. The bill does not do those things and that is why we cannot support it.

Education is the first duty of any nation that calls itself just. That is why we lodged constructive amendments at every stage of the process—some with the Government’s support—that were designed to strengthen the bill. Although some of them were accepted, the Government has left reform unfinished with a bill that does not deliver. A review is not a new regulator; a consultation is not a commitment; and action delayed, however well intentioned, is action denied.

Education reform cannot be delivered on foundations that are half built. Therefore, Scottish Labour cannot support the bill. That is not because we do not want reform but because we do, and the bill fails to deliver that. Scotland’s young people deserve better than this.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

The bill was a long time coming. For me, the cabinet secretary and some others, it has been nine years in the making; for other members who have been here since before 2016, such as Willie Rennie, it has been even longer than that. The case for this reform has been made across many years. Given the amount of effort that has gone into the bill for that length of time, I thank the Government’s bill team and the legislation team in the Parliament for the huge amount of work that they have put in to deliver it.

However, the bill did not actually need to happen. There was nothing to prevent the SQA from performing better and there was nothing in the legislation that underpins it that prevented it from doing a better job than it did. The issue is that it simply did not do a better job, and legislative change has been required in a dramatic manner to compel better performance. Indeed, towards the start of the previous session of Parliament—in 2017, I think—the Education and Skills Committee, of which the cabinet secretary and I were members, published a report that proposed significant internal change—primarily cultural change—to the SQA. However, it missed that opportunity. It had the opportunity to change and it did not take it.

In 2020, after the scandal of the alternative certification model, with young people being graded based on their postcode rather than on their abilities, there was no apology from the leadership of the SQA. The Government apologised, but the leadership of the SQA never did. It was more focused on having a credible national data set than on meeting the needs of individual young people and learners and delivering what each of them deserved.

In many ways, it was worse for teachers. The SQA’s approach to teachers over years and, indeed, decades has verged on and in some cases surpassed the definition of hostility. I emphasise that I am talking about the senior management team at the SQA and not the whole organisation. There are about 1,000 staff at the SQA—1,000 brilliant, talented and dedicated individuals—and they will make qualifications Scotland a success.

The bill, which was significantly amended through the legislative process, will create an organisation in which staff will have to work with teachers, students and others. They will have to consult extensively before making key decisions, which is something that the SQA not only did not do but often refused to do. Staff will have to co-design the learner charter and the teacher and practitioner charter and set out the principles that will underpin their work. The two committees that will lead on that work will be made up entirely of learners and of teachers and practitioners, and they will link directly to the organisation’s board. That link is currently missing between the learner panels that the SQA has convened or outsourced and the current organisation’s board.

There is a point of learning from the national qualifications group that was set up during the pandemic, in which young people were included but in an entirely tokenistic and disempowering way. The chief examiner—a role that we have just agreed to create—must be an educator. Again, that has been missing from the system. Too often, key decisions have been made by those who, to be frank, did not understand the impact that they would have in the classroom.

The board will include experts who will have that direct experience. That means having at least five teachers and lecturers on the board rather than the situation that we have seen for the past five years, whereby there is not a single teacher or headteacher, or the situation that we saw at one point when there were three management consultants compared with just one teacher. There will be someone on the board speaking for staff and there will be a duty to recruit young people to the board. We are setting very high expectations of those board members.

At this point, I put on the record my thanks to Shirley Rogers, who has already begun the transformation of the SQA as it stands, leading to the creation of qualifications Scotland. As Miles Briggs said a moment ago, we are trying to legislate for a change in culture, and that is exceptionally difficult. However, under the leadership of Shirley Rogers, the culture at the top of the SQA is already changing and it is preparing to meet the expectations that we have set out for qualifications Scotland. I certainly welcome that.

This is a huge opportunity for us to move forward with an organisation that is driven by the voices of teachers and students in particular, and the Scottish Greens will be proud to support the bill at decision time.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Earlier today, I was reading a speech by Tavish Scott from 2017, in which he made a passionate case for change, but that case was primarily about the inspectorate, not the SQA. The SQA issue came at a much later stage, during the pandemic, with the examination results scandal. At that point, excitement and passion was generated because there had been frustration, almost from the point at which the inspectorate and the new Education Scotland had been created, as there was a feeling that no public body should be marking its own homework.

That is why there was, at that point, a real cry that the functions should be separated, and later on, the Parliament agreed to that by majority vote. However, it took years for the Government to implement that decision, and we have reached the final conclusion of that process today.

During all that time, those staff have been waiting in limbo. Since that point in 2017, my biggest criticism has been that the inspectorate missed the big issue in Scottish education: the decline in the international performance of our education system. It was once one of the best, and then it slipped down the rankings, but the inspectorate missed that completely.

That is why, in a sense, we need a much-strengthened inspectorate that carries heft in the Scottish education system and can challenge without being intimidated by any part of the public sector. I am afraid that, so far, that has not been the case. Likewise, that applies to Education Scotland, which has now been split from the inspectorate. Those bodies need to be given greater support, because we need them to be strong and to challenge public authorities and schools. They need to appoint senior people, whom we currently do not have in place. That needs to change, and it needs to change quickly.

Finally, with regard to the SQA, the alternative certification model that was used during the pandemic stimulated the desire to abolish that body after many years of trying to get it to change. If we are frank, however, the SQA has changed. We can see the culture change that is being led by Shirley Rogers, who is already making a dramatic impact on the body. However, it still requires a plethora of committees, engagement processes, learners’ panels and advisory groups to ensure that the voices of young people, parents and teachers, from across the education system, are built into the SQA.

We now have the charters to ensure that we get the culture right, and we have the important review on accreditation. One of the criticisms that staff have levied at the Education, Children and Young People Committee, and at the Government, is that we agree the form before we agree the function. That is why the review is the right thing to do to decide what we will do with quality assurance and the scope of accreditation. Only then can we decide where to put it. I am afraid that the alternative amendments in stages 2 and 3 were trying to discuss the form before the function. We need to get it right this time and to do it in a professional fashion to ensure that it is indeed right.

My final point is on safeguarding and child protection. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has laid out a process for ensuring that the concerns that the General Teaching Council for Scotland and others have expressed about the supervision and oversight of the system—not individual inspections—in relation to those two aspects are properly considered.

The bill is a good step in the right direction. Now, we need to let those bodies get on and develop a strong place in Scottish education so that we start to improve in our performance.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Rennie. We move to the open debate, with back-bench speeches of up to four minutes.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

I am pleased to stand tonight to speak in favour of the Education (Scotland) Bill. As deputy convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, I start as others have done by thanking everyone who has contributed to the bill and helped to shape it as it made its way through our Parliament.

After months of scrutiny by the committee, I am looking forward to making the final few changes to the bill with the amendments that were in front of us today. Now we can get on with dotting the i’s, crossing the t’s, and driving forward with improving our education system.

Although we are looking to improve it, we should not forget that our starting point is that we already have a great education system thanks to the hard work of teachers up and down the country and to the pupils, too, who I sometimes think do not get enough credit.

I said that the system is great, not perfect. That is because there is always room for improvement, some of which will be directly achieved by the bill and some enabled by it.

The most talked-about change that the bill will deliver is that the Scottish Qualifications Authority will be replaced with a new national qualifications body for Scotland, aptly called qualifications Scotland. Our committee heard a great deal about how the SQA could improve. We heard that our teachers felt that there was a disconnect between the SQA and their profession and that the SQA’s work did not seem to take account of the reality in our schools. The stand-out example for me was when qualification requirements were changed during an academic year. That is being changed.

Qualifications Scotland will be a new authority, with new governance arrangements, new people, including a headteacher, and a new ethos. Those changes might be seen as small to start with, but those small changes will add up and I am certain that, over time, they will mean substantial and tangible improvement for our pupils and teachers.

The bill also seeks to create an independent inspectorate to ensure that every child gets the great education to which they are entitled. However, the whole bill—new qualifications authorities and inspectorates, and all the amendments that we have seen as the bill moved through Parliament—is only one step in a journey. The end of that journey is when every single child in Scotland has the best chance to succeed in life and poverty does not hinder their life chances.

The Scottish Government has been clear, time and again, that it will do everything that it can to close the poverty-related attainment gap. That is not only about an education bill and new organisations but also about the investment of billions in our schools estate and £1 billion in the Scottish attainment challenge, expanded free school meals and breakfast clubs, school uniform grants, the game-changing Scottish child payment and, before that, the baby box and best start grants. What a contrast to the United Kingdom Government’s continuing to balance its books on the backs of children through their shameful two-child cap—actually, something else for my list is that it is this SNP Scottish Government that is abolishing the two-child cap in Scotland.

We can make no better investment than in our young people—it is an investment in Scotland’s future. Today, we can help to build that future by passing the Education (Scotland) Bill and pushing on with improving our education system.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Davy Russell, who is this evening making his first speech in the Parliament.

Davy Russell (Labour, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

Thank you, Presiding Officer, for giving me the opportunity to make my first speech.

Being elected as the member of the Scottish Parliament for Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse is one of the biggest honours of my life. I will start my speech by paying tribute to my predecessor, Christina McKelvie. While chapping doors during the election campaign, I spoke to many people across our community and, as members might expect, I heard plenty of different views on the various political parties and the characters within them. However, regardless of where I went or who I spoke to, I heard genuine warmth and affection for Christina. She was a passionate MSP and a friend to many across the chamber. She served my community with distinction and will always be fondly remembered. [Applause.]

On the campaign trail, I had hundreds of conversations with people across my community, and education was one of the big issues that came up time and again. I heard from parents, teachers and even grandparents who were worried about the state of our schools and who feared that the next generation was being deprived of the opportunities that previous generations had.

Scotland’s education system was once the envy of the world. An old friend of mine, Len Murray, a former lawyer who passed away a few years ago, said something during an immortal memory that stuck with me. He said that, in the years

“of the great Scottish Enlightenment … in the ... 18th century … Scotland produced more men of letters, more men of learning and more men of science than did any other nation on earth.”

That was as good as it got. Scotland maintained its educational high standing in the world right into this century. However, on the SNP’s watch, standards have been plummeting, attainment is declining, violence is rising in our classrooms and kids’ backgrounds are holding them back from reaching their potential, because of the SNP’s failure to close the attainment gap. Trust in our education system is on the floor after the SQA’s shameful attempt to downgrade the results of working-class pupils during the pandemic—a move that was signed off by John Swinney, who is now First Minister.

The SNP needs to give itself a shake and ask itself, where did it all go wrong? On its watch, education has been—and still is—a shambles. The educational bus has no engine, no steering wheel and an extremely poor driver who has lost his way.

A new direction is desperately needed to deliver the education system that young Scots deserve, but the SNP is just rebranding its failing institutions. We cannot tackle tomorrow’s challenges with today’s complacency.

A good education is a key driver of efforts to reduce child poverty. The status quo is not good enough, and I cannot sign off on more of the same, so I will vote against the bill. The SNP has wasted an opportunity to do right by Scotland’s young people. Building a better future for the next generation is one of the most important missions of any Government. That starts with education, because education is not just about exams; it is about equipping young people with the confidence, curiosity and character to thrive in this world.

I was born in Quarter, which is near Hamilton. I still live there today. I started my career as a roads apprentice in Hamilton before working my way up to director level. Until the by-election, I had the honour of representing His Majesty as a deputy lord lieutenant of Lanarkshire.

My life has been spent serving my community, but throughout my life I did not expect to become a politician. However, I knew that the opportunity to be Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse’s voice in the Scottish Parliament would be the best way that I could serve my community again.

Mine is a story not of privilege but of standard education through the two good schools that I went to. Perseverance, hard work and further education—that is the spirit that I bring to the chamber.

As I said on the night that I was elected, the only thing greater than being elected as my community’s MSP was the feeling when my grandson was born, which was 10 weeks ago, on the night that I started my political journey. Holding him in my arms reminded me of exactly what is at stake here. It is not just about policy or politics—we can get by without that—but about the kind of Scotland that we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren. I entered the Scottish Parliament not with the answers but with a deep-rooted belief in public service, a commitment to listening and an unshakeable resolve to stand up for the people who sent me here.

To the people of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, I thank you for putting your trust in me, and I will work every day to earn it. My promise to you is simple: I will be your voice in the chamber, and I will never stop fighting for a better, fairer and more hopeful future for us all. [ Applause .]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Russell. We move to closing speeches. I call Ross Greer to close on behalf of the Scottish Greens.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

I congratulate Davy Russell on making his first speech in the chamber. I find that, nine years in, the novelty and privilege of being in the chamber have certainly not worn off yet.

I start by re-emphasising the point about the robust governance mechanisms that we have put in place around accreditation for qualifications Scotland. Whereas the SQA has, until very recently, had just a chief executive, qualifications Scotland will at all times have a chief executive, a chief examiner and a chief accreditation officer. The chief examiner will be accountable to the expert group on standards, and the chief accreditation officer will be accountable to the accreditation committee. We have just agreed to separate their roles in law and to require them to act independently of each other. That addresses form, but we need to be honest that the Parliament was not yet ready to make a decision on function in terms of the scope of accreditation. However, we have agreed a clear process for that going forward, and I think that we have struck the right balance.

The claim that what we have agreed to today does not meet the demands that have been set out by teachers and young people in particular rings a bit hollow. Teachers and young people have not been talking to us about the specifics of where the accreditation function sits; the most common piece of feedback that we received from those who are directly involved in the system was a desire for a change of personnel at the top of the organisation, and that is what we already have, with a new chair, a new chief executive and a new leadership culture that is being developed as a result.

I want to talk about the next steps. Now that we have addressed the questions of structure, we need to move on to how to reform our qualifications and inspection systems. Scotland’s exam system is still stuck in the Victorian era. We still have a high-stakes, end-of-term exam model that is largely unchanged from when it was set up about 150 years ago. There are problems with that for a whole range of reasons. It is abysmal for young people with additional support needs in particular. It is not appropriate that, when it comes to exams, the one-stop solution for young people with additional needs is to simply get more time in the exam hall. For the young people who struggle most with that format, having to sit in the exam hall for even longer than everybody else is not a solution and often makes things worse.

We now have alternative data sets. Once we resolved the issues in 2020, we had a comparison between what happens when teachers use their professional judgment to issue grades for their young people and what happens through the exam system. That poses a question for us: were teachers really overrewarding working-class young people in particular, or do we have an exam system that penalises those young people compared with their colleagues from more middle-class backgrounds?

We have an opportunity to balance the system with more continuous assessment, which is a much more accurate reflection of young people’s knowledge and abilities. The proposals that Professor Hayward set out provide an opportunity to do that. They are bold, but they are exactly what we need. We have a 21st century curriculum in Scotland, and it deserves a 21st century qualifications system to match up with it. That is how we can meet the expectations that the OECD review, in particular, has put on us.

I ask the chief inspector to be bold, too. It would be honest to say that our current inspection system is not driving improvement. Inspectors often have a similar experience of life to that of the King, because everywhere that they go smells of wet paint. I propose that we move to a system of peer review. That could be done in different ways—we could have teachers who take a week or two out of school each year to take part in a peer review exercise with teachers from another school and another authority area, and we could have three or four-year secondments as career progression opportunities. That would mean that those who conducted inspections always had direct, recent experience of being in a classroom.

I finish by congratulating, in particular, the young people who got us to this point—those in the Scottish Youth Parliament and those elsewhere who demanded change and forced us to deliver it. The bill provides major change. It delivers what young people and teachers have demanded. Tonight’s vote will be one of the most significant ones in this parliamentary session. The SQA’s abolition will get the headlines, but what is much more important is the far stronger organisation that we are putting in its place—one that will put the voices of young people and teachers at its heart from the start.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I want to go back to human rights. Articles 28 and 29 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child give our young people the right to an education and indicate what that education should cover. In a sense, I am following on from the previous speech by talking about what our young people are feeling and what they are experiencing. I note, with the greatest respect to the youngest and the oldest members of the Parliament, that the reality is that the school experiences that children and young people are having at the moment are so different from the school experiences that we had. Likening our experience to theirs does them a disservice.

The debate allows me the opportunity to mention a report by the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland called “This is our lives, it matters a lot.” A lot of the quotes in it relate specifically to the challenges that examination poses. The commissioner’s concluding assessment states:

“The pressure, anxiety, and stress that exams are placing on children and young people is not only reducing their ability to access their right to education ... but also affecting their right to the highest attainable standard of health ... This has been long recognised, including during the National Conversation on Education in 2023.”

I raise those points because of where we are. We are discussing the Education (Scotland) Bill, which provided the one opportunity during this parliamentary session to make a difference. It could have made a difference to the children who are coming to the end of their first year at school, to the children who are looking at this summer holiday as the step before they start school, to those who are transitioning to high school and to those who are transitioning from the end of their broad general education and moving into whatever assessment formula we decide to throw at them in a few years. However, there are also many children who are finishing education tomorrow or on Friday. What will they look back on? When they have their own children, will they look back at the difference that the bill made to their lives?

This is where I have a challenge with the procedures that we have undertaken during the bill’s passage. I thank the cabinet secretary for a lot of the discussion that there has been, but I humbly offer some advice: there is a difference between cross-party support that results in enough votes to get amendments agreed to and cross-chamber support, which is what Scotland wants and is clamouring for.

I raise those two points because the proposed Promise bill will be coming this way. I hope that every member in the chamber learns lessons about how the Parliament can work with the Government in relation to the way in which amendments are dealt with, the way in which assurances are given and the way in which all that can play out, as we have seen over the past two days of stage 3.

I take the opportunity to thank the cabinet secretary in relation to the amendments regarding child safety. I thank her for our discussions before stage 3 regarding the challenge that exists between our local authorities and the independent organisation that judges and monitors teachers, because we need to get that right.

I recognise that time is short, but it would be wrong for me to conclude without complimenting my newest colleague on a phenomenal first speech. He painted us something that I will leave as a challenge for everyone in the chamber: the concept of an education bus. Is the bill a simple repaint job when we had the opportunity to rebuild a vehicle that could take our children and young people into the future? Has there just been a change of steering wheel when what we needed was a navigator who knew where they wanted to go, knew why they wanted to go there and, perhaps most importantly, could take not just the Parliament but the rest of Scotland with them?

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I might be the third person in line to do so, but I would like to extend my congratulations to Davy Russell and welcome him to the Parliament and the chamber. I also thank him for expressing the sentiments that he mentioned in his speech. I am three years into being an elected member, but I still feel a sense of excitement about the fact that I am here in this place.

I turn to my speech. Presiding Officer,

“reform is not in itself a panacea. Cultural change in both Government and our agencies will be essential if we are to build a new qualifications system that carries the credence that children, parents and the teaching profession will expect.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2024; c 24.]

Those are not my words—I am quoting the cabinet secretary—but I cannot disagree at all with their content or the sentiment that they express. However, here we are. Will the bill that we have just debated truly deliver a cultural change in both the Government and our education agencies? I think not. We could have been debating a bill that made a monumental change to our education system and truly embraced the concept of change that we all agreed was needed. However, unfortunately, much of its promise has been watered down and, in my opinion, it will result in little more than a rebranding of the already failing SQA.

In 2022, Professor Muir’s report recommended separating the SQA’s accreditation and regulation functions from its role as an awarding body. The report recommended that accreditation be transferred to a new national education agency, which would also take on responsibility for the curriculum and the professional support roles that are currently held by Education Scotland.

I totally agreed with the response that Miles Briggs gave to the intervention on his speech, because what we are looking at is simply an internal restructure. We were looking for radical cultural change—that is what we wanted to see from the bill—but, instead, the agency’s functions have not been separated in that way. Splitting the awarding and accreditation functions of the SQA is fundamental to creating a system that will work. As the scandal surrounding last year’s higher history exam showed, the SQA should not be marking its own homework. The truth is that it should have a complete overhaul—not just a cosmetic makeover and a name change.

The proposed changes fall far short of what was needed to ensure that the organisation operates effectively and is properly accountable. At every stage of the bill process, amendments were lodged with the aim of ensuring that the bill would offer not only reform but much more. At stages 2 and 3, Conservative members tried to amend the bill so that the cultural change that the cabinet secretary admitted was essential would come to pass. It is therefore extremely disappointing that the opportunity to enhance the bill—and, ultimately, to enhance our education offering in Scotland—has not been taken. I was incredibly disappointed that some of the amendments and the contributions, especially in yesterday’s proceedings—

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

Will the member take an intervention?

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will.

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

I am listening to Ms McCall express her disappointment, but I am also looking at the totality of amendments, both from her party and from Scottish Labour, that the Government supported. Does she not think it somewhat incoherent that, having worked with the Government on those amendments, both Labour and the Conservatives are now positioning themselves against the legislation?

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I appreciate what the cabinet secretary is saying, but what I am seeing is — I will use a phrase that my colleagues have just mentioned—low-hanging fruit. The amendments that were accepted were the amendments—[ Interruption .] I am sorry, but does the cabinet secretary want to intervene again?

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

No.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Thank you very much.

The disappointment that I want to highlight is down to some of the behaviour that was on display yesterday. Some of the amendments that were spoken to, and some of the contributions that were made, were met with what, in my opinion, were arrogance and contempt. I believe that that shows disrespect to the Parliament and does a disservice to the people who we represent. Members might have differing opinions, but every one of our contributions is equally valuable.

It is our job to be a voice for the people who we represent. The fact that the majority in the Parliament might disagree with the substantive points that are made in debates does not diminish those points or the need for them to be made. It is our moral duty to fully push the debate, and if members in the chamber think that Opposition voices should be silenced, curtailed or belittled they will push this institution towards dictatorship and away from democracy.

As I mentioned, the Scottish Conservatives will not support the half-hearted attempt at reform that the bill represents. As has been the case with so many bills brought forward by this SNP Government, we are debating a bill that is an acceptable move in the right direction, rather than making the necessary legislative changes to make tangible moves to improve outcomes for the people of Scotland. That is not what this Parliament was set up to do, and the public will not thank us for it. They deserve better.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call the cabinet secretary, Jenny Gilruth, to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Government.

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

I want to start by paying tribute to Scotland’s young people, our teachers, parents and carers. This bill is for them. That is why we are legislating tonight.

Jackie Dunbar rightly spoke about the strengths in Scotland’s education system. She said that we already have a great education system in Scotland. It is not perfect—I accept that—but we have a strong education system in Scotland, and I want to pay tribute, on the record, to those who work in our schools every single day to deliver that education to our young people.

Once again, I thank all members for their contributions to the debate. I am also very grateful for what has been, in the main, a constructive approach from all Opposition parties, with members having engaged with my office and officials over recent months. We have seen a slight deterioration in the past 24 hours—

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I have spoken to all Opposition parties about this. Would the cabinet secretary acknowledge that the bill has been rushed? We have had to sit two evenings in a row to rush the bill through before recess. In hindsight, would it not have been better to delay stage 3 until after the summer recess? She might then have attracted cross-party support for the major reform that she is putting forward, which, it is clear, not every party is willing to support.

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

I have to say that there is some incoherence on that point. I was told that I was not going fast enough on education reform, and I was criticised by the Conservatives and the Labour Party for delaying reform. I did delay reform—by a year—for good reason, which I will come to discuss. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. There has been extensive engagement—

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

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

I say to Ms Duncan-Glancy that I would like to make some progress.

Our qualifications system is the reason why we are here today, and getting the reform of our national qualifications body right matters. Ross Greer was quite right to remind the chamber of the recommendations from the Education and Skills Committee in the previous session of Parliament, of which we were both members. Had the SQA listened to the recommendations in the committee’s report at the time, we might not be here today.

Similarly, Mr Rennie was right to talk about Tavish Scott’s impassioned interest in separating out the inspectorate function from Education Scotland, and he was consistent in that argument. If—when—the bill passes this evening, I am sure that he will be pleased.

I want to put on the record my sincere thanks to the members of my bill team for their diligent work and the support that they have given me throughout the past few months. They are hiding at the back of the chamber, but I will embarrass them by naming them. I thank Clare Hicks, Lisa Bird, Sean Stronach, Jaxon Parish, Nico McKenzie-Juetten, Judith Brown, Laura Barrie, Findlay Glynn, Tracy Manning, Shirley Anderson, Maria Crespo, Jack Buckley and Mark Byrne. [ Applause .] I also thank Shirley Rogers, the chair of the SQA, for all the work that she has undertaken to change the SQA in advance of the legislation, and I pay tribute to our special adviser, Erin McKee, who has been at the forefront of negotiations with the Opposition parties.

When I was first appointed Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills in March 2023, I was told of the radical appetite for reform and the need to work differently—and to get it done tomorrow. With cautiousness and trepidation, I returned to the Royal high school, 5 miles from where we are today, and met with my former colleagues. In the staffroom that I once knew well, I sat and listened to our teachers. It was apparent then that there was a disconnect between some of the loudest voices that were advancing the case for radical reform and those at the chalk face, who were calling for pragmatism and asking for patience. Those discussions were pivotal in my decision to delay the introduction of the bill by a year to ensure that we really engaged with the needs of Scotland’s teachers.

Building in that time to listen has changed the way that the new qualifications body will work, with the creation of the schools unit already under way, led by former headteacher Sarah Brown. It has also changed the way in which curriculum reform is being delivered, with classroom teachers leading the national reforms across every curriculum area.

In my opening remarks, I mentioned several important amendments that I worked on with Opposition members. I wish to highlight the contribution that Liz Smith made in ensuring that the chief inspector recognises the important role that outdoor education plays in our system.

The bill focuses on our public bodies. It does not change how our schools are run, nor does it change how education is delivered, but it does improve the support that our public bodies can give our teachers, directly involving them in decision making, for example. It also ensures that young people’s voices are at the heart of the organisation and gives independence to the chief inspector to provide challenge and support.

The Education (Scotland) Bill provides Scottish education with an enormous opportunity. MSPs can vote tonight to abolish the Scottish Qualifications Authority; they can vote to establish qualifications Scotland—a new organisation that is designed with teachers, parents, carers and young people at its heart; and they can vote for legislation to drive the reform that is needed in Scotland’s schools. I hope that all parties take the opportunity to do so, and I commend the Education (Scotland) Bill to Parliament.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes the debate on the Education (Scotland) Bill at stage 3.

Historical Policies Affecting Gypsy Traveller Communities

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is a statement by John Swinney on historical policies affecting Gypsy Traveller communities. The First Minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Today, the Scottish Government has published reports that highlight the injustice and prejudice that Gypsy Traveller individuals, families and communities have faced as a result of the historical policies and decisions colloquially known as the tinker experiments. Although those events pre-date this Parliament, it is important to recognise that the impacts of those policies are still felt today. I know that in the public gallery today are members of the communities impacted. I welcome them to the chamber and I applaud their tenacity in pursuing these issues over such a long period of time.

Since its inception, the Parliament has demonstrated its willingness to address uncomfortable and, for some, incredibly painful elements of our national story. My statement today is set in that context.

I invite Parliament to consider that only by confronting those difficult truths from our past are we able to move forward, learning from the mistakes of the past as we work towards a more just and equitable Scotland—a Scotland that truly honours and celebrates the rich culture of Gypsy Travellers.

It falls to the Government to state, without ambiguity, that what happened to Gypsy Traveller communities in Scotland was unacceptable. That starts with formally acknowledging and apologising for the harm caused by those actions. It is clear to the Government that stark prejudice and lack of cultural awareness led to a series of unfair and unjust policies. Those policies resulted in children being removed from families and in families being forced to live in substandard accommodation and degrading conditions. The trauma that that has caused to individuals, families and groups, including those who regard themselves as victims of the tinker experiments, is significant and lasting.

So, as First Minister of Scotland, I want to say directly to Gypsy Traveller communities: the tinker experiments should not have happened. Those policies were wrong, and we recognise how much they are still hurting so many today. More than anything else, I want to say this: on behalf of Scotland, we are sorry.

We have come a long way since the tinker experiments, but there is still much to do. We still see prejudice and ignorance today. Indeed, discrimination towards Gypsy Travellers is often described as

“the last bastion of respectable racism.”

It is not.

We must be united in unequivocally condemning all forms of hatred, discrimination and prejudice, particularly those that still cause members of Gypsy Traveller communities in Scotland to feel unsafe, unwelcome or marginalised in their daily lives or in the expression of their identity and way of life.

This statement comes at a particularly important time. Every June, we celebrate Gypsy, Roma and Traveller history month. Through celebration, education and raising awareness, the month plays a vital role in challenging prejudice, amplifying the voices of Gypsy Traveller and Roma communities and reshaping public understanding. The national event organised by the Scottish Government at Dynamic Earth last week highlighted the important work that is being carried out by many of our national and local partners to improve the lives of Gypsy Traveller communities in Scotland. It also celebrated the rich culture and heritage of those communities. I understand that the event was very well attended and very well received, and I warmly encourage members—indeed, anyone—to attend similar events in the future.

We must all play our part in eradicating racism, inequality and injustice, and in building a better, fairer world where every person has the same opportunities and where everyone’s individual needs are recognised and met. We can achieve that only by working together in partnership, ensuring that communities are at the heart of our discussions.

That is why a short, initial community consultation was commissioned to engage with members of Gypsy Traveller communities impacted by historical policies. The Minister for Equalities attended one of those sessions in person, and I know that she was deeply moved by the powerful insights and experiences that were shared with such courage.

We recognise that revisiting past trauma is never easy, and we are truly grateful for the generosity and openness shown by members of the community throughout this process. We are also aware that others might still wish to share their stories, and I want to reassure them that the Government is here to listen, whenever and however those individuals feel ready to explain their story.

We have now published a summary of the results of the consultation along with the archival research report, and we are keen to continue the conversation to find the best and most effective way forward.

We also recognise that historical policies have affected individuals and groups differently with direct and indirect impacts. Those effects vary, based on multiple factors, and often carry intergenerational consequences. Understanding that complexity is crucial as we work toward collective progress on the issue.

Improving the lives of our Gypsy Traveller communities is essential if we are to tackle deep-rooted inequalities and deliver a fairer Scotland. The progress that we have made since the events that are outlined in the report is significant. It is a testament to the collaborative work of national and local government, the dedication and tireless efforts of third sector organisations and, most of all, the determination of Gypsy Travellers to ensure better futures for their communities.

Since the publication of our first “Gypsy/Travellers action plan”, the Scottish Government has taken specific actions to improve the lives of Gypsy Traveller communities in Scotland in key areas such as accommodation, tackling discrimination and improving representation and access to public services and education. Last year, we published an updated action plan, building on the successes that we have had to date.

At the same time, we recognise that there is still much more work to be done. The experiences that have been shared underline the need for systemic change, greater accountability and, crucially, a shift in attitudes at every level. We must do better.

Recognising the harm that is caused by this prejudice is only the first step; it must be followed by meaningful action. That includes challenging stereotypes, confronting everyday discrimination and committing to long-term efforts that promote understanding, respect and equity for Gypsy Travellers.

We have reached this moment due to the efforts of many people. Individuals in Gypsy Traveller communities have argued with care and tenacity for these injustices to be addressed. Some have not lived long enough to hear the words that I am sharing with the Parliament today. I pay tribute to their commitment to the pursuit of justice.

I also pay tribute to our late colleague and former Minister for Equalities and Older People, Christina McKelvie. She fought tirelessly to address the inequality and injustice that Gypsy Traveller communities faced. I know that this apology today would be the recognition and the long-anticipated justice that she worked so hard to deliver for so many. I pay tribute to Christina McKelvie, who always listened to those who suffered injustice and acted to address that injustice.

Our hope is that we now have a foundation on which to continue building trust and fostering renewed relationships with all those who have been impacted by historical policies. As we look ahead, the Scottish Government is determined to maintain a strong leadership role in advocating for the rights of Gypsy Traveller individuals and in celebrating the rich history, culture and contribution of these communities.

An apology is not the end of the conversation; it is, I hope, the beginning of a new conversation. We want to continue the dialogue and to work together to keep improving the lives of Gypsy Traveller individuals, families and communities in Scotland—that is the commitment that I make to the communities and to the Parliament today. Our duty is to address the errors of the past and to work for a better future.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The First Minister will now take questions on the issues that were 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.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the First Minister for early sight of the statement.

It is difficult to calculate how many Gypsy Travellers have been forced by historical policies to alter their lives. The impact has been deeply felt by the community. Those who were affected have said that such policies destroyed lives, shattered and separated families and affected generation after generation. Members of the Gypsy Traveller community have been petitioning for an apology from the Government for years, so I welcome the long-overdue apology this afternoon. Researchers have highlighted that it is the responsibility of the Scottish Government, so why has it taken so long for the apology to be given? Is the Scottish Government considering compensation for those affected? If that is the case, when is that anticipated to happen?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I welcome Alexander Stewart’s comments on the apology that I have given to the Parliament and to the Gypsy Traveller community. The Government has been working to address the issue, and, in the course of my comments, I made reference to Christina McKelvie’s leadership on the issue. Christina engaged faithfully with the Gypsy Traveller community and raised those issues. We have now addressed them after the production of the research report, which I am glad that Alexander Stewart has welcomed.

As I indicated, the Government has offered an apology today. We will engage with the community further as part of encouraging and motivating a dialogue to address the injustices that have been experienced. The Minister for Equalities will take forward that dialogue with the Gypsy Traveller community in the period to come.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

I thank the First Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I welcome the formal apology that he has made to Scotland’s Gypsy and Traveller communities.

The Government is right to acknowledge that, although they occurred before the Parliament was established, the Scottish state and its public institutions should recognise the wrongs that were visited on Gypsy and Traveller communities. The tinker experiment was wrong and should never have happened. It exposed some of our most marginalised communities to cultural injustice, prejudice and failure. Although that occurred many decades ago, it is clear that it has had a lasting effect. On behalf of the Scottish Labour Party, I add our apology to that of the First Minister.

We have heard that it has taken a long time to reach this day. Once again, it is important that we pay tribute to all the individuals in the Gypsy Traveller community who have spoken out and have had to relive injustices in order to get the recognition and the apology that they deserve. It is also important to put on record the work not just of Christina McKelvie, about which I accord myself with the comments of the First Minister, but of all the other organisations in Scotland, particularly the Scottish Human Rights Commission under the stewardship of Professor Angela O’Hagan and others, that continue to work on these issues.

In response to Alexander Stewart, the First Minister acknowledged, once again, that this is the beginning of a conversation and a process, but I do not think that he said in definitive terms whether there will be consideration of a redress scheme. Is he able to say anything further on that? If not, is he able to say why that is and whether he thinks that redress in the form of compensation would be appropriate?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I welcome the comments that Paul O’Kane has put on the record and his acknowledgement of the shared obligation that we have on the matter.

As I indicated in my statement, it is right that those who hold office today act on behalf of the state in relation to failings and errors that happened long before our responsibilities started. I do that unreservedly in the Parliament today. I also associate myself with Paul O’Kane's comments about the contribution of other organisations, such as the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which have, of course, advanced many of these questions.

Mr O’Kane’s question raises the issue of cultural prejudice. We live in a society where we are wrestling with issues of prejudice in different forms and in different shapes, and we must be vigilant—Mr O’Kane knows the degree to which I am concerned about these issues—in confronting the sources of that prejudice. We are acknowledging historical prejudice, but there are versions of prejudice that are still prevalent in our society today.

The Government does not have immediate plans for a redress scheme, but, as I indicated in my response to Alexander Stewart, this will be the start of further dialogue with the community. I am keen to ensure that we follow up the apology with means of supporting the community and individuals within the community to overcome the damage that has been done in the past.

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Today is a historic moment on the path to reconciliation. I welcome the First Minister’s apology and much-needed recognition of the deep harms that were caused by state policies such as the tinker experiment and the associated practice of trafficking Scottish Traveller children overseas. Does the First Minister agree that, beyond acknowledgement, true reconciliation and the healing of intergenerational cultural trauma require on-going community-led investment in support and cultural preservation for Scotland’s Gypsy and Traveller communities, which must remain a priority for the Government?

I take this opportunity to thank community members, activists and academics such as Roseanna and Shamus McPhee, Dr Lynne Tammi-Connelly and Davie Donaldson, as well as all the third sector partners who never stopped pushing for justice. Christina McKelvie, Kevin Stewart and I were deeply privileged to work together with members of the community on the first action plan, and today’s apology can now be placed at the heart of this work.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I acknowledge the importance that Elena Whitham attaches to the term “reconciliation” and I am glad that she has done so, because that is the route for us to have a process of healing with a community that has been badly damaged. I hope that the steps that the Government has taken today and the fact that I am here offering the apology on behalf of the state to the Gypsy Traveller community indicate the seriousness with which the Government considers the matter and the significance that it attaches to the need for it to be addressed.

In my constituency capacity, I have engaged with a number of the individuals whom Elena Whitham referred to. Roseanna and Shamus McPhee are constituents of mine, so I am directly familiar with the experiences that have been recounted, and I am grateful for their engagement on the question. I am determined to ensure that the approach to reconciliation can be built on the basis of the apology that has been offered today. That is the commitment that the Government offers to Parliament.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

Despite Scottish Government action, Scotland’s Gypsy Traveller communities are still some of the most marginalised and isolated. Those communities still face significant challenges, particularly in accommodation, with sites across Scotland in need of funding and updates. Just last year, funding for improvements at a site in Dumbarton was delayed despite a desperate need for investment. Such challenges are found across Scotland. What discussions has the Scottish Government had with local authorities to ensure that they have made necessary upgrades?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Work is on-going with local authorities to address the issue that Pam Gosal puts to me. Obviously, many of those issues—indeed, all of them—will be taken forward at a local level, because they involve local planning considerations, and it is right that local authorities are taking the lead in that respect. As part of the process that I am setting out today, the Government will engage with local authorities about how that agenda is taken forward. The best way to address the errors and failings of the past, particularly in relation to questions such as poor accommodation, is to ensure that, in the future, accommodation is better and meets the needs of the communities. That is the objective that the Government brings to Parliament today.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I welcome the First Minister’s statement, and I thank the Minister for Equalities, Kaukab Stewart, for the work and passion that she has put into fulfilling the legacy of our dear colleague Christina McKelvie. I also thank all the organisations and people involved.

Does the First Minister agree that those in the Gypsy Traveller community should be involved at every step of the way in progressing their futures and that their voices must be heard as a priority in light of the terrible injustices that they have historically endured?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

It is absolutely vital that the community is involved at every step of the way in that endeavour. The failures of the past happened because people were not listened to and not respected. They must be listened to and respected in the future, and that is what the Government will deliver.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

Two United Nations reports have highlighted the persecution of the Gypsy Traveller community in Scotland and the need for an apology and further action. The First Minister says that the Scottish Government will listen. The community is asking for restitution and reparations. Does the First Minister agree that, where there are human rights abuses, compensation is appropriate?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Those are the issues that we now have to consider. The starting point for the dialogue is the apology that I have made today on behalf of the state. That is not the end of the process; it is the beginning of another part of the process, which we will take forward in dialogue with the community. As I have just explained to Rona Mackay, it will be an engaged process that involves the community at every step of the way.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The report describes a forced and systematic initiative to remove Gypsy Traveller children from their families and communities. How will the Scottish Government ensure that Gypsy Traveller community members who were affected by that shameful period in their history are supported in getting closure and coming to terms with the ordeals that they suffered?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr McMillan has highlighted some of the archival report’s truly disturbing contents. As he will be familiar with, the Government’s approach to the whole area of children’s policy is, as far as possible and in all circumstances, to act to keep families together when they face any form of challenge or difficulty. Therefore, to read in a report about a policy to essentially force parents and families to separate is deeply uncomfortable and disturbing, hence the importance of the apology that I have given in the Parliament today.

Mr McMillan’s question has highlighted one very clear example of the trauma that Gypsy Traveller communities have suffered. As part of on-going work through the various interventions that are set out in the action plan, we must support individuals so that they have the assistance to come to terms with that trauma. Listening to the community, understanding its needs and addressing those needs will lie at the heart of the Government’s response.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I thank the First Minister for his statement. On behalf of the Scottish Greens, I welcome Gypsy Traveller community members to the Parliament. I am glad that you can be here to witness this. I recognise community members Dr Lynne Tammi-Connolly, Roseanna and Shamus McPhee and Davie Donaldson, whose determination is why we are here today. The apology is important and I hope that it signifies a new direction for how we in Scotland’s Parliament engage with, support and treat members of Gypsy Traveller communities across Scotland.

I will continue the conversations that I have been having with the Scottish Government on next steps, because we must discuss reparations and redress. For now, how can we ensure that the Government’s apology—it is long overdue, but it is here now—will be the catalyst for other public bodies that had a role in the tinker experiments to properly examine their complicity, apologise to communities and provide to those communities the proper services, from housing and healthcare to education and cultural recognition, that deliver dignity, respect and justice?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I readily acknowledge Maggie Chapman’s points about the community’s determination and tenacity. We would not be here today had it not been for the community’s determination to ensure that those wrongs were addressed. We now need to move on and build on the actions that are already under way through the action plan in order to provide better lives and outcomes for Gypsy Traveller community members. That is what the Government will do.

Maggie Chapman raised the issue of other public institutions. The Government is responsible for some of those institutions, so it should be interpreted that my apology has been given on their behalf. However, I hope that other bodies that are not directly under my control will listen with care to what I have said to the Parliament today and act accordingly. I cannot direct them, but I hope that other bodies will take their lead from my acknowledgment of the importance of addressing the wrong that was inflicted on the Gypsy Traveller community. The process of righting it starts with apologising for the error in the first place.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I also welcome today’s statement. The First Minister said in it:

“An apology is not the end of the conversation; it is, I hope, the beginning of a new conversation.”

I have every faith that his Government will carry on that conversation and listen to the Gypsy Traveller community.

I had the great pleasure of serving with Elena Whitham and Christina McKelvie on the working group that came up with the Gypsy Traveller action plan in co-operation with the community. Christina McKelvie was immense at bringing folk together. What can the Government do to bring folk from the Travelling community and from other communities together to have conversations, to foster understanding, to defeat prejudice and to create friendships?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The route to addressing Mr Stewart’s question lies in the approach and legacy of Christina McKelvie, who acted with dignity, empathy and respect when dealing with all communities in our society. As a long-serving colleague of mine, Mr Stewart will know how much we were all influenced and affected by the skills and attributes of Christina McKelvie, who demonstrated how empathy, dignity and respect could be deployed in community relationships in our country. I want to ensure that, through the Government’s actions, we learn from that experience and approach so that we succeed in addressing the substantial question that Mr Stewart has put to me.

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

Although the apology is overdue, it is very welcome, and the Liberal Democrats unreservedly add our voice to it. However, let us not pretend that the rhetoric and narrative about the Gypsy Traveller community from some quarters, particularly from politicians, has always been just or justified, so I hope that the apology is universal across the chamber.

Many of the problems of yesterday are still the problems of today—be it higher suicide rates among the community, lack of educational attainment or lack of access to basic fundamental public services and human rights, such as those relating to health and housing—so there is clearly more to be done. Given the scale of those challenges, will the First Minister commit to a full parliamentary debate in Government time after the summer recess so that we can discuss them?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

On the question of a parliamentary debate, Mr Greene will appreciate that commitments of that type are even above the pay grade of the First Minister, but I will ensure that the Minister for Parliamentary Business is well aware of that request, which the Parliamentary Bureau can discuss.

Mr Greene’s point is really important. We have to take a human rights-based approach to all these questions. That is the foundation for the respectful treatment of individuals in our society, and it lies at the heart of the Government statement that I have made in the Parliament today. The Parliament has endorsed a human rights-based approach to many aspects of our policies, and that should be reflected in the outlook and perspective of members of Parliament in how we respond to this challenge.

Mr Greene is absolutely right to highlight the fact that there remains a significant prevalence of prejudice in our society. That prejudice will take different forms, but it must all be confronted, because prejudice is unhealthy in our society. I give him my commitment that the Government will confront it on my behalf.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

I warmly welcome the First Minister’s recognition of the grievous wrongs that have undoubtedly been done to the Gypsy Traveller community over the decades and the national apology that he has just made. Can he say anything further about the significance of the Scottish Human Rights Commission’s on-going spotlight project on the cultural recognition of Scotland’s Gypsy Traveller community? When will the findings of that research be published?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The spotlight project has been taken forward by the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which acts independently of the Government. At this stage, I do not have information on publication timescales, but research of that nature is an essential tool in deepening our understanding of the challenges and the lived experiences of Gypsy Traveller communities, so the Government will pay very close attention to the contents of that material when it becomes available to us.

Medium-term Financial Strategy and Fiscal Sustainability Delivery Plan

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is a statement by Shona Robison on the Scottish Government’s medium-term financial strategy and fiscal sustainability delivery plan. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Today, I am publishing two documents that broadly set out how public finances will be managed in the next five years—the Scottish Government’s seventh medium-term financial strategy and our first fiscal sustainability delivery plan.

Today, the Scottish Fiscal Commission is also publishing an update to its independent forecasts, which underpin the strategy and delivery plan. I thank Professor Graeme Roy and the Scottish Fiscal Commission for their flexibility in working with us.

With the world facing profound economic uncertainty, this MTFS is being presented in deeply challenging circumstances. Those challenges have been exacerbated by the actions of the United Kingdom Government, whose decisions continue to have serious consequences for the delivery of our public services. For example, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has again failed to provide full funding for the additional costs of employer national insurance contributions, leaving public services in Scotland to face a £400 million shortfall. Furthermore, had the resource funding that is provided to the Scottish Government for day-to-day priorities matched the average increase for UK departments in the UK spending review, we would have £1.1 billion more to spend in the next three years.

Last week, the UK Government set out proposals that will deliver deep cuts to disabled people’s support, which will push more people into poverty, with a real-life negative funding impact in Scotland of £440 million by 2029-30, based on the Office for Budget Responsibility’s estimates.?

Given the situation that is developing in Westminster today, how exactly the UK Government will deliver its intended changes remains to be seen but, for the purposes of today’s publications, I will be using the numbers that the Treasury gave us at the UK spring statement. For Scotland, funding from the UK Government for day-to-day spending is only expected to grow by 0.8 per cent in real terms in the next three years, compared with a 1.2 per cent average growth for UK Government departments. Scotland’s capital block grant will be 1.1 per cent lower in real terms by the end of the UK spending review period.

Those allocations simply do not reflect the unavoidable realities of the demands that will be placed on public services by the demographic challenges that we face, not least through an ageing population. On capital, construction price inflation, which has been turbocharged by Brexit, continues to drive up prices, while the necessity to maintain and invest in new assets remains.

To ensure that public services are there to meet the needs of the people, we are introducing our reform and savings plans. The UK Government is taking similar action. Indeed, the chancellor has set out the approach to achieving fiscal sustainability for the UK, with all departments to deliver at least 5 per cent savings and efficiencies by 2028-29. Within that, there are reductions in administration budgets of at least 11 per cent by 2028-29 and 16 per cent by 2029-30 in real terms. We require to take similar actions as, without our doing so, the forecast gap between funding and spending in Scotland could reach £2.6 billion for resource and £2.1 billion for capital by the financial year of 2029-30.

Managing the impact of Westminster austerity is all too familiar but, in spite of that, we continue to invest in the people of Scotland by supporting a better paid public sector, delivering high quality public services, and providing welfare support that is not available in other parts of the UK. We have done so while delivering a balanced budget every single year since 2007.

We will reform and reshape our public services, using technology to embrace and drive forward new ways of working. That shift is critical to and underpins the first pillar of our strategic approach, which is to continue to increase value for the public purse, maximising the impact that we achieve through our investment. That is why, alongside the budget in December, I will publish a multiyear Scottish spending review and an infrastructure pipeline that will set out affordable and sustainable investment plans for the years ahead. A framework for that spending review is being published in the MTFS today.

As part of the second pillar, we will deliver efficiencies. That means improving productivity and making the most of every pound of public money that is spent on delivery. We will focus on business improvement to drive down the cost of service delivery, not only in corporate functions but across the whole system—as was set out last week by the Minister for Public Finance—while protecting outcomes. Business improvement will include the sharing of services and estates across our public bodies and the driving of efficiencies from collaborative procurement across the public sector.

We will set a managed reduction target for the public sector workforce to reduce staffing levels by an average of 0.5 per cent per year until 2030. That will be achieved through reforms to our public services, as has been set out in our public service reform strategy, through natural attrition and recruitment controls. By taking that action, we will protect valuable front-line services and continue to offer a progressive pay policy that recognises that our public sector workforce is our most valuable asset.

We will focus on how to process and deliver benefits with dignity, fairness and respect, while driving important efficiency savings and ensuring that people access the support they are entitled to. We will continue our targeted programme of efficiency and productivity improvement within the national health service. We will seize the opportunities that are presented by the rise of innovation, digital and advances in treatment. We will commit to working with NHS boards and staff, ensuring that the use of core resource is optimised and that best value is secured across NHS Scotland.

As part of the third pillar, we will drive forward service reform to improve the way in which we deliver services. We must integrate support and empower the front line to bring together all the resources that people and families need to thrive. Lastly, we will focus on prevention, investing in the most impactful preventative spend to reduce demand on services in the medium to long-term. In order to improve lives, we will deliver the technical and cultural change that is needed to go further in tackling the root causes of poor outcomes. For example, through the “Best Start, Bright Futures” breakfast club delivery plan, we will continue to drive forward cross-Government action on eradicating child poverty.

Through the actions to maximise value from public spending and drive efficiency and reform that are presented in today’s delivery plan, we expect to generate total cashable savings of £2.6 billion by 2029-30. That equates to 4.4 per cent of the forecasted resource budget for that year. Growing the economy is a top priority for the Government. By boosting business activity, driving wage growth and creating employment opportunities for more people, we can broaden the tax base, alleviate pressure on public finances and generate income tax revenue to support fiscal sustainability in the medium to long term. That is the focus for the second pillar of our strategy.

Our plan for increasing Scotland’s economic activity centres on creating a dynamic and flexible business environment, improving skills provision and supporting people to secure higher paying jobs, creating opportunity for people to enter or take on more or better work, attracting investment, and promoting entrepreneurship in the industries of tomorrow. However, the levers that are available to us to stimulate economic growth are limited. For example, the UK Government’s current approach to immigration harms Scotland by failing to address our demographic and economic needs, thus exacerbating labour supply issues. Despite those constraints, this Government will continue to take action and make the most of Scotland’s strengths and opportunities to boost our long-term economic prospects.

Our overarching economic strategy sets out our vision for a fair, green and growing economy, and we are prioritising the delivery of the actions that are outlined in our programme for Government to deliver growth that will help people to enjoy more prosperous lives now and in the long term, and protect the public services that we all rely on.

The third pillar of our approach focuses on delivering a strategic approach to tax policy decisions. Despite limited tax powers, we have taken bold, necessary action in recent years to ensure that our vital public services are prioritised.

Our decisions on income tax since devolution are helping to protect investment in public services. Scottish income tax is forecast to raise a record £20.5 billion in 2025-26, with the latest SFC forecast showing a positive contribution to the 2025-26 Scottish budget of £616 million, with the total tax net position to be £2.3 billion by 2029-30.

Our delivery plan sets out further the range of actions to improve the operation and performance of the existing tax system. For example, we are implementing new devolved taxes, including the UK aggregates levy in 2026 and the building safety levy in 2027, and we continue to work in partnership with local government to ensure that local taxes are fair and sustainable. We will also take forward work on considering future reform to the tax system, including through developing our thinking on longer-term issues such as wealth taxation.

Fiscal sustainability is about more than balancing the books: it is about delivering value, driving reform and making strategic choices that support long-term growth. By focusing on efficient public spending, modernising services, growing our economy and taking a strategic approach to tax, we can build a stronger, fairer Scotland. Meeting the challenges that face our public finances will require a collaborative effort across the public sector and beyond any single parliamentary year.

Our strategy and action plan set out a clear path. I invite my colleagues across the chamber to work with me to deliver them and to ensure that our public finances stay on a sustainable footing.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

The previous medium-term financial strategy was published just over two years ago. Last year’s was binned, and this year’s was delayed. With the Government slipping out this year’s strategy just before the summer recess, we have no time to properly scrutinise the plan. What we do know is that, without radical action on public sector reform, health and labour force trends, Scots face substantially higher taxes or a state that does less.

The projected £5 billion fiscal gap by the end of the decade is not Westminster’s fault or responsibility; it is the Scottish National Party’s. Today’s 0.5 per cent workforce reduction plan lacks ambition and detail. The tax strategy is wrong, and it is bringing in just £616 million this year, which is £1 billion less as a result of the SNP’s economic performance gap. There is still no credible plan to generate the growth that is needed to pay for it all.

How can we trust the SNP to deliver additional tax receipts of £2.3 billion by 2029-30 when its existing plans bring in only a quarter of that? How do ministers intend to pay for Scotland’s health outcomes? Yesterday’s data revealed that things are still getting worse. How does the Government intend to address alarming and rising levels of economic inactivity, which can no longer be ignored, and how will ministers pay for the year-on-year surge in welfare spending, which is £2 billion, as a result of SNP policy? Is it not the case that the delayed SNP document is too little too late to rescue the Scottish economy or our fragile public finances?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Again we hear hyperbole from Craig Hoy rather than anything about the detail of the plans that I have produced today. [Interruption.] Let me take Craig Hoy through a couple of facts. Our funding is determined largely by Westminster, and I set out the impacts that are driving the gap in 2029-30—there are three in particular. One is the cuts to disability benefits, which will impact the Scottish budget by £440 million. The cost of mitigating the UK Government’s two-child cap could be offset if the UK Government decided to do that. There is also the impact of employer national insurance contributions, with a gap of £400 million. Then, of course, we have the very low rate of funding growth, which is 0.8 per cent lower than the average for UK funding departments.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

There were four questions in there, but I have not heard any answers.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

It sounds to me like Craig Hoy wants to defend the Labour Government’s spending review instead of defending Scotland’s public finances and funding. That is a political decision for Craig Hoy to make. [Interruption.]

Let me explain—probably for the fourth or fifth time—a point that Craig Hoy seems to have misunderstood. The Scottish Fiscal Commission has produced an illustrative policy-only income tax net position, but that is not supposed to represent what the income tax policy could raise for the Scottish budget—I have told him that time and again. More importantly, Professor Graeme Roy of the Scottish Fiscal Commission has told Craig Hoy that. Perhaps he needs to start listening a bit more, rather than talking.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Today is the day when years of gross mismanagement of the public finances by SNP ministers caught up with them, and the price is being paid by ordinary Scots. Let us be crystal clear: by no definition—other than the SNP’s—can the budget that it receives be described as representing austerity. Scotland’s budget will increase in real terms each and every year of this forecast. There is an additional £9.1 billion for Scottish public services and, by 2029-30, the block grant will be £52 billion. This SNP Government is making cuts because it has spectacularly mismanaged Scotland’s budget. SNP ministers have created a structural deficit of a staggering £2.6 billion as a result of the choices that they have made. The SNP’s cuts plans set out huge reductions in front-line workers and a 12 per cent funding cut to Scotland’s NHS boards.

This comes at a time when, only yesterday, we learned of soaring accident and emergency waiting times and the worst cancer waiting times on record, with SNP ministers admitting that people are dying as a result of the incompetence. Domestic abuse statistics are at record highs and house building rates are plummeting down, down, down. These are cuts to mitigate their incompetence. It has never been clearer that Scotland needs a new direction. This SNP Government has the powers and the money. Is it not right that it is out of ideas, out of excuses and out of time?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Michael Marra has outdone Craig Hoy’s hyperbole as usual. Let me give Michael Marra some facts. First, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is also delivering savings: 5 per cent savings and efficiencies by 2028-29 and an 11 per cent real-terms reduction in administrative budgets by 2028-29, rising to a 16 per cent real-terms reduction by 2029-30. Why is it okay for Michael Marra’s Labour UK Government to make those reductions in corporate costs and back-office costs—[Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

—but it is not okay for the Scottish Government to make reductions in corporate and admin costs to protect front-line services? Michael Marra needs to explain why it is okay for the Labour UK Government to do that but not okay for the Scottish Government to do that. We will take action on reforms and reduce corporate and back-office costs in order to protect front-line services and welfare spending—something that Michael Marra and his colleagues want to cut. We will protect the priorities of this Government, and we will let Michael Marra defend a UK Government record on disability cuts that is indefensible.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There is a lot of interest in the statement. If we can hear one another, we will be able to include more members.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

East Lothian is one of the fastest-growing areas in Scotland, along with the broader south-east Scotland region. Extensive economic and housing opportunities are possible in the region, as is highlighted in the “Strategic Sites Programme October 2024”, which was published by the Edinburgh and south-east Scotland city region deal team. How can the Scottish Government engage with the local authorities in the area in relation to the medium-term financial strategy to maximise opportunities?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Scotland’s regional economies and regional economic partnerships are critical to growing our economy. The strategic sites programme highlights that targeted Government capital and revenue support can help to unlock those strategic sites, which is why we are funding areas such as the Granton waterfront with targeted funding to help to unlock vital investment. We will continue discussions with strategic partners, focusing on emerging business cases such as that for Blindwells, over the next months in order to develop a joint approach to facilitating the progress of these strategic sites.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In May 2022, the then SNP Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy, Kate Forbes, who I do not see in the chamber, pledged that the Scottish Government would reset the public sector, return the size of the workforce to pre-Covid levels and freeze the pay bill. We now know that all three of those promises were broken. The public sector pay bill has ballooned, while the civil service full-time equivalent head count has gone up from 17,700 in 2019 to 27,400, which is a staggering 54 per cent increase. At the rate of reduction of 0.5 per cent a year that has been announced today, how many years will it take to get the public sector workforce back to pre-Covid levels, as promised? I make it 70 years. Does the cabinet secretary agree with my arithmetic?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Murdo Fraser forgot to mention the growth in the areas of welfare spending in which we have devolved powers, which required the establishment of Social Security Scotland.

What I have set out today is an achievable and deliverable workforce reduction plan that can be implemented in a way that focuses on back-office and corporate costs. The plan will make a sizeable contribution to the overall cost reduction that I have set out in my statement, alongside the other work that Ivan McKee set out in his statement.

We will not do what the Tories have done—put forward unaffordable proposals for £1 billion of tax cuts that they have no way of funding. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Members.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

We will set out our spending review at the end of this year. It is up to the other parties in the Parliament, whether the Tories or Labour, to set out their spending plans. The envelope is the envelope, and it will be very interesting to see whether they would divert from our spending plans and, more importantly, what they would cut from those spending plans. We will wait and see what they bring forward.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

It would be very helpful if all front-bench members could set a good example to the rest of the chamber.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

The UK Government’s decision to cut disability benefits is completely wrong-headed. It is simply unacceptable to try to balance the books on the backs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. What assessment has been made of the impact that that decision will have on Scotland’s public finances? What steps will the SNP Scottish Government take to protect disabled people from those Westminster cuts?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Department for Work and Pensions’s own impact assessment highlights that, by 2029-30, 3.2 million families will lose out as a result of those reforms. Ninety-six per cent of those families include a disabled person. The proposed changes will push a further 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, into poverty by 2029-30. The UK Government’s disability benefit reforms will reduce the block grant adjustment funding that we can expect to receive for social security benefits in 2029-30 by £440 million.

The Scottish Government will not let disabled people down or cast them aside, and we will not cut Scotland’s adult disability payment.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

As has already been mentioned, the fiscal sustainability delivery plan sets out that the devolved public sector workforce will fall by 0.5 per cent in each of the next five years. Given that the public sector workforce in Scotland consists of 469,000 people, I make it that that will involve a decrease of 2,300 a year, which will result in a cumulative reduction of 11,700 jobs.

Such stark action is perhaps unsurprising, given that the NHS head count has increased by just one third of that, and the numbers of police, fire, local government and college staff have all gone down over the past five years. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that we are looking at a reduction of more than 11,000 full-time equivalent posts? Will NHS and other front-line services be protected? Are those targets compatible with the policy of no compulsory redundancies?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Daniel Johnson asks some very important questions. First, because of the scale of the challenge in recent years and across the medium term, the health service will receive a 3.3 per cent real-terms increase in funding. That is important. However, like the health service in England, the NHS in Scotland will require to undertake reform and make efficiencies. In England, about £9 billion will have to be saved by 2028-29, which is about 4.4 per cent of the NHS budget. We are requiring the health service in Scotland to undertake reform, with a particular focus on back-office and corporate costs, in order to protect front-line services.

I have set out that the no compulsory redundancies policy will be maintained as the default position. However, as a last resort, once all steps have been taken in relation to voluntary severance and redeployment, and there is no other route and no jobs for the people involved, compulsory redundancy can be considered, but only at the end of that process. I have been engaging with the unions and the Scottish Trades Union Congress on that, and we believe that the reductions can be made through natural attrition and voluntary severance. Only in that extreme position would compulsory redundancy be enabled, and we do not see that happening in very many cases.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

It is disappointing that the UK Government’s central capital allocation for Scotland in four years will be £163 million less than this year. What will that mean for capital investment in our infrastructure?

The statement mentioned a modest 0.5 per cent annual decline in the public sector workforce, as we have already heard. Will that be concentrated in specific departments or across the board, and how will front-line services be protected?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

In response to Kenny Gibson’s final question, we will absolutely focus the reductions on back-office and corporate costs. We believe that, through reform, we can make major changes to the way that back-office and corporate functions are delivered in order to protect the front line. We want to be able to deliver our spending plans and the Government’s priorities of protecting front-line services, eradicating child poverty, growing the economy and reaching net zero by taking the action that is set out in those plans.

Kenny Gibson also mentioned capital. The capital outlook in the UK spending review is very disappointing. We will return to that through our spending review and the infrastructure investment pipeline that we will set out at the end of the year alongside the 2026-27 budget.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The envelope is not fixed. The cabinet secretary’s statement acknowledges that tax policy will have to play a role if we are to avoid damaging cuts to public services. The plan that she has published today commits to ensuring that local taxes are fair and sustainable. Why, then, has the Government continued to oppose Green proposals to revalue council tax, which is the most substantial local tax that exists? Why does the work to replace that broken, outdated and deeply unfair tax seem to have stalled completely?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

We continue to discuss with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, through the joint working group, potential reforms to local taxation. Of course, some reforms have already happened, with the additional fiscal levers that local government now has.

As I have said at committee and in the chamber, it is important to build a political consensus on what any substantial reform to council tax looks like, otherwise it will not get off first base. That remains my position in relation to not only the parties in the chamber but local government and, importantly, the public.

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

According to today’s forecast, the bills for health and social care and devolved social security benefits account for more than half of all Government spend, with both bills rising every year for the next five years to the tune of £150 billion. The Scottish Government claims that economic growth is its top priority, but with one in five Scots economically inactive, surely the public sector reform that we need is the sort that will help to get people back into work, reduce the welfare bill and make our nation wealthier, healthier and happier. Does the cabinet secretary not accept that today’s forecasts instead demonstrate an unsustainable budget that achieves none of that?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Let me start on a point of agreement, which is that it is important to get people back to work. Our employability schemes and our investment in employability are important ways to do that.

There is also our focus on growing the economy through investment in the Scottish National Investment Bank, investment through Scottish Enterprise and delivery through our enterprise agencies. We also have incredible levels of direct investment into Scotland. There are some underlying strengths in the Scottish economy.

Yes, there is more to do. We look forward to working with Jamie Greene and his colleagues on some of the additional measures that we can take, particularly around employability and what works to get people back into the labour market.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

As the pressure of Labour austerity and inflation continues to attack funding for our public services, and as the increase in employer national insurance continues to bite, ever more will probably fall to be delivered by the third sector—our charities—yet they, too, fall foul of that employer national insurance hike. Does the cabinet secretary agree that charities should be exempt from that job tax, and that it should be fully funded if they are not exempt?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I agree with Christine Grahame on that point. The analysis was, I think, that the national insurance increase would cost the third sector more than £80 million—which will, of course, be a cost to the services that that sector provides. We will work with the third sector, in the absence of UK Government movement on exempting it, to look at multiyear funding, for example, because certainty of funding is something that it would greatly welcome.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In the letter that the convener of the Finance and Public Administration Committee wrote to the cabinet secretary on 14 May, it was made abundantly clear that the committee had significant concerns about the very late publication of the MTFS in the last week of term, which delays the scrutiny process for two months. Does she recognise the serious implications of late publication and its effects on scrutiny, forecasting and policy making?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

In my letter to the committee, I recognised that the situation was less than ideal, but it was driven by the fact that we needed to see the numbers in the UK spending review. It is as well that we waited to see those, because, compared with the actuality of the UK spending review, there has been a deterioration on the forecasts that we and the SFC made. That was my whole reason for delaying. I would have thought that it was better to have accurate figures as the number 1 priority.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

The cabinet secretary referenced culture change. The permanent secretary gave evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee yesterday, during which he confirmed that nearly 50 per cent of all Scottish Government staff are in a management role. That culture must change as part of public sector reforms. Is the cabinet secretary absolutely assured of the complete support of the permanent secretary, as accountable officer, to make that skewed figure into a much more normal distribution?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The permanent secretary agreed that cultural change is required. I therefore believe that we have the leadership in the organisation to recognise that the spending plans , the outlook that I have set out today and the requirements for reform, including doing things differently and head-count reduction, have to be delivered throughout the organisation, starting at the highest level, from the permanent secretary down. He will be working very closely with the ministerial team, including the First Minister, in delivering that.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes the ministerial statement. There will be a short pause before the next item of business. I apologise to members whose questions I was unable to reach.

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 refer to the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, SP 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. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 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.

Before we get under way, I remind members that the length of time for consideration of amendments this afternoon reflects the timetabling motion that was proposed by the Parliamentary Bureau and agreed to by Parliament yesterday afternoon. The motion is based on the assumption, which was raised with business managers prior to the stage 3 proceedings in the usual way, that contributions from members with a right to speak on each group would last for up to five minutes. The timetabling motion also allows time for other contributions, for the disposal of amendments and for the cabinet secretary to speak and respond to amendments. The timing lines that were agreed in the motion give a guide to allow steady progress through the proceedings, and I encourage members to be mindful of the agreed timetable during this afternoon’s proceedings.

That said, given the position that we reached last night, I now exercise my discretion under rule 9.8.4A(c) of standing orders to allow debate on the first group today to continue beyond the next time limit.

After section 30

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 16 is entitled “Involvement of teachers, college staff and others in inspection matters”. Amendment 29, in the name of Stephen Kerr, is grouped with amendments 30, 38, 39, 234 to 236, 239, 240, 240A and 81. I point out that, if amendment 43, which was debated in group 12 on independence of the chief inspector, is agreed to, I will be unable to call amendments 239 and 240 due to pre-emption.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I understand that the Minister for Parliamentary Business is having kittens about how long I take to deliver my speeches, but I point out to the Parliament that, since most of the members in the chamber—

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the member take an intervention?

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Of course I will. I assume that this will be deducted from my allocated time.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I just rise to point out that I do not think that it is just me who has that perspective. [Applause.]

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am sure that everyone who is watching—I will qualify that: anyone who is watching—will be interested to see how much the Scottish National Party does not want the bill to be scrutinised. The reality is that it should be scrutinised. We have a duty as members of this Parliament to scrutinise the bills that come before us, and that is exactly what I intend to do. Any attempt to curtail or constrain this afternoon’s debate will be entirely counterproductive, because it will only feed the growing reputation that this Parliament has for predetermined outcomes and performative scrutiny—[Laughter.]

Well, if members think that it is performative to seek to improve—

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry, but I think that our hearts are all sinking at the idea of a repeat performance. I am sure that the member thinks that this is very funny, but is there anything in standing orders that requires him to speak to the amendments in the group rather than making other random points that take up time and try our patience? [Applause.]

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Harvie. I think that I have made it clear that the chair intends to proceed in accordance with the timetabling motion that was agreed to by all of the Parliament yesterday afternoon. It is for members to speak to amendments, but they may well wish to draw on other points in so doing.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Only Patrick Harvie could take up the time of the Parliament to make a point about me making points that are not relevant to an amendment. That was a ridiculous point of order.

The reality is that every amendment that was brought to the chamber yesterday by members of all the Opposition parties was lodged in good faith. Not one amendment that was spoken to yesterday was designed to wreck the bill. They were all designed to make a poor bill better, to give it substance, to make it matter and to honour the voices of teachers, learners and parents who have spent years crying out for change. This is the only bill that we have had in the current session of Parliament that has sought to change the education system for the better, and I doubt whether it will do that unless it is seriously amended. We are, in many ways, not making much progress on that.

My amendments in group 16 speak to a single foundational principle—that those who teach, support and lead learning in our schools and colleges must have a central voice in shaping how we inspect and improve our education system. That has been commented on by many teacher leaders, including representatives of the teaching trade unions. Amendments 29 and 81 would establish that the design, structure and practical application of the inspection process must be developed in genuine consultation with the representatives of teachers and college teaching staff. That is not an optional courtesy—it is a necessity.

We have heard time and time again that there has been a profound breakdown in the trust between the profession and those who are charged with inspecting and evaluating it. The Muir report, which put learners at the centre, was clear in its critique of Education Scotland’s dual role and its failure to engage meaningfully with the teaching profession. The report was underpinned by the testimony of more than 5,000 voices across Scottish education, and one of its clearest messages was that teachers and practitioners felt unheard. We must take that message seriously.

My amendments in the group are about creating an inspection system that teachers can trust, not by lowering expectations but by really listening to the profession. When we fail to engage with those at the chalk face, we do not just alienate them but also impoverish our understanding of what is really happening in our schools and colleges. These are not meaningless amendments; they mean a great deal to the people who are engaged in teaching.

During the stage 2 proceedings, I raised the issue that top-down models of inspection often miss the local contextual knowledge that classroom teachers and college lecturers possess. That argument is not abstract. It is grounded in the evidence of what went wrong with previous models. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report made a related point when it criticised the lack of robust feedback mechanisms between policy and practice. There is no point in inspecting a system if the process does not learn from the professionals who deliver it.

Amendments 30, 38, 39 and 236 would go further and provide an annual structured mechanism by which teachers and lecturers could make recommendations on how inspections are conducted. The chief inspector would then be required either to act on those recommendations or to explain in writing why they were not doing that. That would create not only a pathway for practitioner influence, but a safeguard against indifference. If we are serious about building a system that is based on mutual respect and continuous improvement—the Opposition parties in this place are certainly serious about building such a system—the voices of teachers cannot be included as an afterthought. They must be embedded in the very architecture of the inspection. The amendments would ensure just that.

We know from our debates on the bill and the reports that we have all studied that there has been a cultural failure at the heart of Scottish education governance. That failure has been characterised by centralisation, opacity and an unwillingness to hear difficult truths from the profession. My amendments in the group offer us a legislative opportunity to change that. They would promote a culture of collaboration in which inspections are seen not as external judgments imposed from on high but as part of a shared endeavour to raise standards for all learners. Indeed, that collaborative approach is not only fairer, but also more effective. Research consistently shows that systems improve most when those within them feel that they have ownership of the process of reform. A system that is designed with teachers will work better than one that is designed for them.

We must also consider morale. As we have seen in recent surveys by the NASUWT and the Educational Institute of Scotland, Scottish teachers are under enormous pressure. Verbal abuse, physical assault, dwindling support staff and ever-shifting expectations are taking their toll. Amid all of that, the least that we can do is to ensure that inspection is something that is done with teachers and not to them.

We cannot forget our colleagues in the college sector. With the reforms that were proposed by the Withers review and major transformations in post-school learning delivery, college lecturers are facing immense structural and pedagogical—I have a problem saying that word—change. I should have said teaching, should I not? It is vital that the inspection process in further education listens to and reflects the experience of college lecturers as well.

My amendments are not complicated; they are practical. They would set in statute the processes of annual consultation, transparency and reasoned response, and they would make it clear that an inspection must not ignore the views of those whose work it evaluates. Some may say that this is merely procedural, but I argue the opposite: it is cultural and foundational. It is about whether we will build an education system that is rooted in partnership or in prescription. My amendments in the group answer that question, and I urge all members to support them.

I move amendment 29.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Amendment 234 is a simple amendment. It would clarify that, under section 36(4), the chief inspector will be required to consult only such persons as they consider appropriate, and it would allow them to fulfil the requirement by consulting a reasonable cohort of the groups that are referenced in the section. The amendment would eliminate any potential ambiguity and any suggestion that the chief inspector must, for example, consult a representative of every school in Scotland. We agreed to similar amendments to other sections yesterday, so I hope that the amendment is not particularly controversial.

Amendment 239 would apply the same clarification to the provision that will require ministers to consult. There would be no need in either case to consult a representative of every school unless they believe that that is necessary. On many occasions, they would simply need to consult a sample to get a representative view.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I support many of the amendments in the group, not least some of the amendments that Stephen Kerr referred to. Teacher input to the inspectorate will be incredibly important. We have seen through various reports and experiences that there has not always been enough teacher input. That causes huge fear among staff who work in schools, particularly among teachers, and it is why the amendments in the group are important.

My amendment 235 would require the chief inspector, when preparing the annual inspection plan, to consult people and organisations that represent those who are most directly affected by inspections—teachers, support staff, school leaders and, where appropriate, learners and parents. By listening at the planning stage, the inspectorate would be able to target its visits, methodologies and follow-up support according to the realities of classrooms and staffrooms, and not simply to a timetable that was set centrally.

My amendment 240, which complements that, would place a similar duty on Scottish ministers. When they draft regulations that may alter how often the inspection plan is reviewed, they should also consult the representatives of those whose work and learning are impacted most closely by inspections. That would ensure that any future adjustment to the frequency is informed by professional experience and by the impact on learners.

Both of my amendments in the group respond directly to evidence that the Education, Children and Young People Committee heard at stage 1 and which was highlighted in the stage 1 report. Teachers, unions and parent groups asked for earlier and clearer engagement in inspection policy. Neither amendment would limit ministerial or inspectorate discretion; they would simply guarantee that decisions are made with and not for the people who deliver and experience education every day.

Consultation at the right time will improve policy, build trust and, ultimately, support better outcomes for young people. I therefore ask members to support amendments 235 and 240.

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

Before I speak to the group 16 amendments, I want to briefly reference the group 15 amendments that were debated last night. I have committed to members to place on the record my intent to engage with the General Teaching Council for Scotland, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other appropriate partners on issues relating to the oversight of safeguarding and child protection systems. I already wrote to COSLA about that on 13 June and it is my intention that the education and childcare assurance board will discuss those issues at its meeting in September.

The Government is keen and willing to use our convening power to identify and address with partners, including the GTCS, any remaining information-sharing challenges in relation to child protection. I am open to members’ suggestions in this space, and I hope that that provides reassurance to Mr Rennie, Mr Greer, Mr Briggs and others who have an interest in the matter.

I turn now to group 16. I have strong reservations about Mr Kerr’s amendments 29 and 30, which seek to require the chief inspector to co-design inspections. Amendment 29 would appear to require each individual inspection to be designed separately. Although every inspection is different and they will be tailored to meet the specific context of the establishment that is being inspected, there still needs to be a degree of consistency in how establishments are inspected. In addition, the amendment’s requirements would be extremely resource intensive, and they would put at risk there being a consistent approach that is fair and equitable across inspections.

However, I support using the views of stakeholders to help to inform the overall approach to inspections. Indeed, the bill as currently drafted will enable that by way of consultation with the advisory council and other groups in the preparation of the inspection plan. However, for individual inspections, I believe that the manner in which that inspection is conducted should be a matter for the chief inspector. We would not want a situation to arise whereby a school is able to avoid inspection of an area of risk or weakness by removing it from the inspection remit through the co-design process.

Mr Kerr’s amendment 30 would require the design of inspections to be reviewed every year, in consultation with a considerable number of interested persons, even when all parties are content that the model of inspection is working well. The amendment would further create a presumption that the chief inspector will accept any recommendations that are made by consultees regarding the design of inspections. Even if recommendations were wholly inappropriate for inspections and did not accord with the views of the rest of the consultees, the chief inspector would be required to provide a written response, which would take up their time unduly—time that could be better used to undertake inspections.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

How can we change the cultural outlook that the profession most often has on the inspection process? If we do not engage with teachers and there is not a collaborative approach to inspections, how can the culture around them change?

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

Mr Kerr and I debated that at length at stage 2. I would argue that the bill has put measures in place to build a collaborative approach. I have spoken about, for example, the consultation process with the advisory council and other groups in the preparation of the inspection plan. My view is that the bill as currently drafted makes provision in that regard. I accept the member’s point about culture and the way that teachers in particular experience inspections.

Although I do not agree with Mr Kerr’s amendments, there is one exception, which is amendment 236. It would require the chief inspector, when preparing the inspection plan, to consult with such persons who are representative of registered teachers and college teaching staff, as the chief inspector considers appropriate. I am happy to support amendment 236 as I believe that it represents the best way to address Mr Kerr’s general concern about this group of amendments, which is to ensure that teachers and college staff are suitably involved in inspection design.

I am also happy to support Mr Greer’s amendments 234 and 239, which would refine important consultation duties that were inserted at stage 2.

On amendment 235, I hope to reassure Ms Duncan-Glancy that the section currently provides that the chief inspector must consult with such other persons as they consider appropriate and so would suitably catch those whose interests are not the interests of educational establishments. On that basis, and with the addition of the category of registered teachers and college teaching staff in Mr Kerr’s amendment 236, I believe that it is unnecessary to include the additional provision in the bill.

With regards to Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 240, I think that it is important that we make it clear that ministers do not have to consult every person who is considered to be representative of a group. Therefore, with her support, I have lodged amendment 240A to adjust the wording, and I urge members to support both amendments.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Stephen Kerr to wind up, and to press or withdraw amendment 29.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I do not have any further comments to make. I am grateful for what I think is a positive response from the cabinet secretary and that she has taken on board the principles that underpin at least some of my amendments. I press amendment 29.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division. As it is the first division on the bill this afternoon, I will suspend the meeting for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We will proceed with the division on amendment 29.

The vote is closed.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer, my app would not connect. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I will make sure that that vote is recorded, Mr Johnson.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 25, Against 88, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 29 disagreed to.

Amendment 30 not moved.

Section 31—Meaning of “relevant educational establishment” and “excepted establishment”

Amendments 31, 32 and 205 not moved.

After section 31

Amendment 206 not moved.

Section 33—The advisory function

Amendments 33 and 34 not moved.

After section 33

Amendment 35 moved—[Stephen Kerr].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted yes.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Ms McCall. I will ensure that that is recorded.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app was not working, but it seems to be working now. It says that I voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Do you want to clarify, Mr McMillan?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Please record that I voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I will ensure that that is recorded, Mr McMillan.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 25, Against 69, Abstentions 21.

Amendment 35 disagreed to.

Amendments 207 and 208 not moved.

Amendment 209 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 209 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 22, Against 93, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 209 disagreed to.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Amendment 210, in the name of Miles Briggs, was already debated with amendment 204. I call Miles Briggs to move or not move amendment 210.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

In light of the cabinet secretary’s comments, I will not move amendment 210.

Amendment 210 not moved.

Section 33A—Working with others

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 17 is entitled “Chief Inspector: duties when exercising functions”. Amendment 211, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, is grouped with amendments 319, 212, 320, 213 to 215, 215A and 216 to 220.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Inspection earns credibility when it reflects the real world of education—its strategic priorities, its diverse learners and the people who teach and support them every day. The amendments in the group would embed those perspectives in the chief inspector’s statutory duty.

Amendment 211 would tighten the obligation on the chief inspector, when exercising their inspection functions, to work with other bodies in collaboration, rather than there being parallel effort. That would make findings more coherent and follow-up support more effective.

Amendments 212 and 219 would ensure that the inspectorate paid heed to the national priorities for school education that ministers might set from time to time. That would strike the right balance. The chief inspector would remain operationally independent, but inspection activity would be aligned to agreed national objectives, such as closing the attainment gap and improving participation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Amendments 213 and 220 would require the chief inspector to consider the “needs and interests” of children and young people and of all other learners who “require additional support”. That would mirror the inclusive communication duties that members endorsed earlier, and it would guarantee that inspection reports evaluated how well additional support legislation was being put into practice. I imagine that it would be rare for a member not to have an inbox full of correspondence on the need to improve the experiences of young people with additional support needs. Amendments 213 and 220 are incredibly important, because we need the inspector, when inspecting schools and exercising their functions, to “have regard to” those young people and their outcomes.

Amendment 214 would add the lived experience of teachers and trainers to the list of matters that the inspectorate must weigh up, whereas amendment 215 would do the same in relation to support staff who work with learners who require additional help. Again, all our inboxes contain correspondence on the experiences of teachers and support staff. Poor behaviour and violence are on the rise as a consequence of some school environments, so it is important that the inspectorate considers those issues and their impact on staff.

Support staff are particularly important in that regard. They are often a forgotten group among staff who work in schools, but we know from various surveys that have been carried out by the NASUWT and by the GMB—I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am a member of the GMB—that support staff experience significant concerning behaviour in schools, so amendment 215 is really important. Those voices are essential. Those staff understand the daily barriers and input, and they can point inspectors to solutions that might already be being tested on the ground. It is not just about addressing concerns; it is about helping to find solutions.

Amendment 216 would instruct the chief inspector to take account of

“the morale and wellbeing of teachers and staff.”

That speaks to some of the experiences that I highlighted a moment ago. We know that morale among the teaching workforce and staff in schools is at a difficult level just now. They experience incredibly high workloads—they are having to do more for young people than they have needed to do in the past, and the support needs that young people have now might be different from those that young people had in the past. We also know that the levels of resource, input and support have not necessarily kept pace with the numbers of young people who need support. That has affected the morale and wellbeing of teachers and staff, so it is incredibly important that that is taken into consideration when schools are inspected.

Amendment 217 speaks to a concern that was raised consistently with the committee during stage 1. However, the concern goes as far back as 2015, when there was a report on the impact of additional bureaucracy and workload for teachers on morale and on the time that staff have to educate and support young people.

Amendment 217 talks to the burden of paperwork and bureaucracy. It would direct the chief inspector to

“challenge unnecessary bureaucracy and offer practical assistance”.

That particular language was chosen because it is the exact recommendation of the 2015 report that unnecessary bureaucracy should be challenged and that there should be practical assistance wherever possible. Those things are crucial for overstretched teachers and school staff. That is why I think that the chief inspector should look to include those things in the work that they will be doing.

Scottish Labour is also happy to support amendments 319 and 320, in the name of the cabinet secretary, which will complement other amendments in my name to ensure that the chief inspector acts with regard to the needs of those with additional needs.

The amendments would turn broad aspirations—collaboration, inclusion, professional voice and practical help, young people’s voice, additional support for learning—into clear statutory duties, so that the inspector would take those things into consideration when they were carrying out their role. By doing so, they would ensure that inspection is more relevant, humane and useful to the people who rely on it.

I move amendment 211, and invite members to support it and my other amendments in the group.

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

I am pleased to be able to support Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 211, alongside my amendment 319, which makes it clear that the chief inspector must work with others

“in every case in which”

they consider it

“appropriate to do so”.

I also welcome Ms Duncan-Glancy working with me on her amendments 212 and 219, whereby the chief inspector must have regard to the strategic priorities for education, which are set out in the national improvement framework, when exercising their functions.

I move to Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 213, and amendment 220, which supports it. I have some concerns about the reference to “inclusive communication”, as I believe that including that wording would not be helpful in this context. However, I am supportive of the intention behind those amendments. On that basis, I ask members to support my amendment 320 instead, which will require the chief inspector to have regard to the needs and interests of persons with educational support needs when exercising their functions.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Amendment 320, in the name of the cabinet secretary, says that the list of things that the chief inspector should “have regard to” should include

“those with additional support needs”.

My amendment 213 says that it should include those young people, too, but that they also should have regard to “inclusive communication”. Although my amendment goes further, does the cabinet secretary not agree that, at the very least, those amendments complement each other?

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

The issue that I have in relation to the amendment as drafted, particularly in relation to the term “inclusive communication”, is the way in which that is interpreted. We want consistency across the bill—I spoke to a similar amendment in a different group on that exact point yesterday. The point that I am making today with regard to amendment 320 is about providing consistency across the bill.

I am also happy to support Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 214 and 215, which would require the chief inspector to “have regard to” the experiences of teachers and staff, subject to expanding that provision via my amendment 215A in order to align it with Mr Briggs’s amendment 76 and to ensure that amendment 215 also covers those working with college students with support needs. I am grateful to Ms Duncan-Glancy for indicating her support for my amendment 215A.

I have some concerns with Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 216. Although it is, of course, important that

“the morale and wellbeing of ... staff”

is considered appropriately, the amendment could be read as meaning that the chief inspector should not report frankly on a school’s challenges, notwithstanding any impact on learners. We should not risk those kinds of unintended consequences and I therefore ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move the amendment. If she moves it, I ask members not to support it.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 217 would require the chief inspector to challenge bureaucracy as they exercise their functions, which might have some value. However, the amendment would also require the chief inspector, in sweeping terms,

“to offer practical assistance to schools and local authorities.”

That would be an additional role for the chief inspector, with unknown scope and resource implications. It would also risk blurring the lines between inspection and the provision of support, which the removal of the inspection function from Education Scotland seeks to emphasise. I therefore urge Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move the amendment.

With regard to Mr. Whitfield’s amendment 218, I have every sympathy with his intention of strengthening arrangements for safeguarding and child protection wherever possible. However, I fear that the amendment will not do that. The national guidance for child protection in Scotland sets out the responsibilities of everyone who works with children, young people and their families, including in educational establishments.

As a fellow former teacher, Mr Whitfield is well versed in the principles behind getting it right for every child, which provides a consistent framework and shared language. We would expect the chief inspector to work in line with those well-established practices and with existing guidance and frameworks.

As I pointed out when discussing a previous group, I have taken steps to initiate a discussion with COSLA, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, the GTCS and other partners on related matters through the forum of the education and childcare assurance board. However, I am happy to put on the record for Mr Whitfield that I will commit the Government to writing to the chief inspector on a regular basis in order to draw their attention to all the guidance that has been published and to which they should have regard to in fulfilling that duty. On that basis, I respectfully ask Mr Whitfield not to move his amendment.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

As today is a new day, I again draw attention to the entry in my register of interests regarding payments that I received at the start of this parliamentary session.

In the first instance, I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement and for the interaction that we have had over this challenging area of safeguarding. At the minute, an area exists that is perhaps best described as grey. It is the area where the GTCS interacts—or does not interact—with local authorities that have a responsibility for employing teachers. That grey area has existed for a long while. The purpose behind my amendment was to draw attention to it and to seek a resolution to the problem. Unfortunately, there are a number of recorded instances in which local authorities have not stepped up to the responsibility that the public might expect of them and that responsibility has fallen between those two stools.

I very much welcome the contribution from the cabinet secretary and her putting on the record the Government’s intention to write to the chief inspector on a regular basis to draw their attention to the guidance. A list of that guidance might be helpful beyond the chief inspector’s purposes, as people would know that they could refer to it instantly when looking for the guidance. On the basis of the cabinet secretary’s undertaking, I do not intend to move amendment 218 when the time comes. I thank members across the chamber—in particular, the cabinet secretary and those who have advised her—for their support on this matter.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Pam Duncan-Glancy to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 211.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I have taken the cabinet secretary’s comments on board, and I am pleased that she will support some of our amendments.

On morale and wellbeing, I take the point that an inspector might worry that they may not be able to make a negative comment, but I do not think that it would restrict them from giving constructive feedback. I am pretty sure that, given all their other duties in exercising their function, an inspector would be able to do so in a way that does not bring down morale in the education system. That would be quite important. I do not accept that amendment 216 would curtail their ability to give commentary on the system.

On bureaucracy and the concerns about practical assistance, inspection should be about improvement. If it is not, that goes back to the point about it being something that staff will fear. That also speaks to the point that the cabinet secretary has just made. I am afraid that I do not agree that the concern with amendment 217 would be about assistance to schools and local authorities, because I think that the role of the inspector should be exactly that—to support schools and local authorities to deliver the sort of education that many of them want to deliver.

I will press amendment 211.

Amendment 211 agreed to.

Amendment 319 moved—[Jenny Gilruth]—and agreed to.

Section 34—Duty when exercising functions

Amendment 212 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 212 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 88, Against 27, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 212 agreed to.

Amendment 320 moved—[Jenny Gilruth]—and agreed to.

Amendment 213 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 213 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 54, Against 61, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 213 disagreed to.

Amendment 214 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to.

Amendment 215 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].

Amendment 215A moved—[Jenny Gilruth]—and agreed to.

Amendment 215, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 216 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 216 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 55, Against 61, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 216 disagreed to.

Amendment 217 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 217 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 48, Against 68, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 217 disagreed to.

Amendment 218 not moved.

Amendment 219 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to.

Amendment 220 not moved.

After section 34

Amendment 221 not moved.

Section 35—Advisory Council

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We move to group 18, which is on the advisory council. Amendment 222, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, is grouped with amendment 223. I call Pam Duncan-Glancy to speak to and move amendment 222 and speak to the other amendment in the group.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

The strength of the advisory council lies in how accurately it mirrors the people and professions that are touched by the inspection regime, and amendment 222 would therefore tighten the duty on the chief inspector, making it clear that council membership must be genuinely representative of those affected by the inspectorate’s work: learners, parents, teachers, support staff and system leaders alike.

I am supportive of amendment 223, in the name of my colleague Ross Greer, up to the sentence that refers to including the chief inspector’s own staff. We think that that goes a step too far. I will leave my comments there in the interests of time.

I move amendment 222.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Amendment 223 relates to section 35 of the bill and provides a non-exhaustive list of those with an interest in the chief inspector’s functions, and, therefore, the groups that the chief inspector will have to take account of when appointing people to the advisory council. It specifically suggests appointing representatives of students, their parents and carers, teachers and lecturers and the chief inspector’s own staff.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Pauline McNeill.

She appears to have managed to press the request-to-speak button without even being in the chamber. [ Laughter .]

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

I was happy to commit at stage 2 to working with Mr Greer on this amendment and to now be in a position to support his amendment 223, which strengthens the provisions in this area.

On Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 222, I do not think that there is a substantial difference between her approach to the requirement on the chief inspector in relation to appointing members to the advisory council and what is in the bill as drafted. However, in the interests of cross-party consensus on the bill, which has been my approach throughout, I am happy to support Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Ms Duncan-Glancy to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 222.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I have no further comments. I wish to press amendment 222.

Amendment 222 agreed to.

Amendment 223 moved—[Ross Greer].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 223 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.