Official Report 183KB pdf
14:48
MV Glen Rosa (Public Funding)
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the recent announcement that the total projected cost of MV Glen Rosa has risen by £12.5 million to £197.5 million, whether it will confirm how much further public funding will be required before the vessel enters service. (S6T-02875)
Last week, the chief executive of Ferguson Marine advised the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee that the estimated cost to finish building the Glen Rosa had increased by £7 million. To account for potential risks, the business has allocated an additional £5.5 million of contingency, resulting in a total forecast cost to complete of £197.5 million.
In line with normal practice, the Government is carefully assessing the information provided to understand the full implications of the revised timetable and costs. Although I understand that the final stages of building and testing a complex vessel are highly technical and some risks become clear only at that point in the process, the further delay and increased costs are still extremely disappointing, particularly for island communities that rely on these services. Ferguson has planned to hand over the vessel in quarter 4, and we would expect it to enter service six weeks after handover.
On 13 May last year, Graeme Thomson and the Deputy First Minister each wrote to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Graeme Thomson said that he was “comfortable” with the new plan and the revised costings for the Glen Rosa. The Deputy First Minister stated the Government’s
“expectation that the senior leadership at Ferguson Marine must demonstrate capability and accountability in the delivery of MV Glen Rosa”.
Now that there is a further increase of £12.5 million—not £7.5 million; there was a contingency sum in there that, it was hoped, would never be spent—does the Government have any confidence in the board and new chief executive of Ferguson Marine?
I have great confidence in the board and the chief executive. As the member will know, Graeme Thomson was newly in the door at that point—I think that, by 13 May, which is the date that Edward Mountain cited, he had been in the job for about 13 days. We have also recently appointed a new chair. Between them, they probably have more experience of shipbuilding than any of their predecessors, so I have confidence in them. That does not take away in any way from how regrettable the latest change is.
Let us be clear. When the chief executive officer moved in, he delayed reporting to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee so that he could find out the facts on the ground. He delayed that report and wrote that letter when he did. We will now end up with a ferry worth £55 million that has cost us £197.5 million. If Kate Forbes has confidence in the board while the rest of Scotland does not, surely she should resign from overseeing Ferguson Marine, because she has been ignored and her position has been totally undermined.
The member will recall that only about two months are left before I will no longer be in this place.
On the chief executive and the board, off the back of the changes that were made earlier last year, we put in place a new structure in order to query, challenge and scrutinise the figures. That is working well, and issues have been identified late in the process. We appreciate that that is far from ideal. However, the accuracy of the figures that have been put to the committee are being challenged by the Scottish Government, and the expectation is that the board and the chief executive, both of whom signed off on the most recent budget forecasts, will be held to account for the forecasts that they provided to the committee.
Given the new structure that has been referenced by the Deputy First Minister, can she provide reassurance that the Scottish Government continues to seek both social and economic best value in delivering vessels with Ferguson Marine?
My top priority has been the completion of the Glen Rosa, so that we are able to improve the lifeline services for our island communities through a more sustainable and better-quality service, which is what they deserve. Considerable time having been spent in the completion of the Glen Rosa, my firm view is that it must be completed as quickly as possible.
I also agree with Stuart McMillan, who has worked tirelessly to represent his constituents who work at Ferguson Marine and the wider community in Inverclyde, that we will continue to support the talented and dedicated workforce at the yard and ensure the best value for those who rely on the vessels.
Does the Deputy First Minister agree that this is yet another failure by the management, rather than the workforce, at Ferguson Marine? In her role as finance secretary, will she say more about what is being done to provide support to those who are suffering as a result of the situation—the islanders on Arran and the community in Ardrossan—and what financial support she is putting in place?
On a point of information, I am no longer the finance secretary, which is probably relevant to that question.
I think that Katy Clark’s first point was about the talent of the workforce. I absolutely agree with her, in full, that the talent, ability and skills of the workforce were never in doubt. In the most recent tenders for new work, the feedback that has been received has pointed to the quality of the work and the need to build on that reputationally, in order to secure new work.
Qualifications Scotland
I remind members of my declaration of interests. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reported concerns that pupils, parents and teachers may have to wait until 2031 for meaningful reform of the qualifications system, and that Qualifications Scotland will only be a rebrand of the Scottish Qualifications Authority, with many of the same structures and staff remaining in place. (S6T-02879)
Yesterday’s launch of Qualifications Scotland and the recent announcement of the appointment of Ruth Binks to the role of His Majesty’s chief inspector of education in Scotland are major milestones in re-establishing trust and confidence in the system following the passing of the Education (Scotland) Act 2025.
The new Qualifications Scotland board heads an overhauled governance structure, with recruitment to learner and teacher interest committees already under way. It will guide the school partnership team, led by Sarah Brown, an experienced headteacher, to ensure that Qualifications Scotland is shaped by the learners and practitioners whom it serves.
Change is already under way on rebalancing assessment methods and placing less reliance on high-stakes examinations, and work is progressing well on the curriculum improvement cycle, ensuring that curriculum change drives qualifications reform in a systematic way in the coming years.
The cabinet secretary talked about re-establishing trust following the passing of the 2025 act, but it is children who are currently in primary 4 who will sit the new rebalanced assessments in 2031. It was in 2013 that this Government said that Scotland would be the best place in the world for a child to grow up. Why is it taking so long to reach that point? Can the cabinet secretary give families a clear assurance that the system that pupils will face in 2031 will be fairer and more reflective of their ability than the one that it is replacing?
I thank Mr Whitfield for his question, although I think that there was a little conflation there in relation to the timeline for the qualifications update, which I published back in June 2025. The detail that Mr Whitfield talked about is therefore not necessarily new. What happened yesterday was, of course, the official stepping up of Qualifications Scotland.
It is worth putting on the record today that much of the work on qualifications reform is already under way. As part of the work on rebalancing assessment methods, which the Government has accepted is important, we are placing less reliance on high-stakes examinations. Written examinations in practical cake craft, metalworking and woodworking at national 5 have already been removed.
That work will be extended, with stakeholder engagement on the removal of exams under way for a further three practical subjects, and that is set to roll out in 2026-27. In terms of qualification design, the new product-type design phase started in autumn last year, with subject-level development from 2028, with the aim of new level 4 and 5 qualifications being aligned to the curriculum framework from 2031.
However, it is important in the broadest terms to accept that changes are already coming. On the member’s point, curriculum improvement in its totality will look across the board—not just at the senior phase, but from the early years all the way through our curriculum—to ensure that the curriculum is fit for purpose and updated accordingly.
The cabinet secretary talked about the rebalancing that sits at the heart of this. Can she say how many additional teachers or specialist staff will be in place to deliver these reforms, and by when? If she cannot answer that, does she accept that, without extra capacity, there is a risk of increasing teacher workload and undermining fairness for pupils?
I very much agree with Martin Whitfield’s point about teacher workload. That is exactly why I have taken a pragmatic approach to the delivery of qualification reform. Like Mr Whitfield, I was in a classroom before I was in this place and I know that, at times, qualification reform the last time around felt as though it might have been dealt with in a better way. I have reflected on that as cabinet secretary, and it is important that we work with the profession.
As Martin Whitfield knows, the profession is currently balloting in relation to strike action on workload. I do not think that, as cabinet secretary, it would be in my best interests to rush forward qualification reform without listening to those concerns and working with the profession. I will continue to engage with the profession to that end.
The member also asked a substantial question about specialist staff. I have not yet been given advice to that end from Qualifications Scotland, but I will continue to engage with him on that. I am more than happy to meet him or to send him further written detail in relation to that specific point.
The last thing that we could accuse the cabinet secretary of is rushing forward with anything.
We warned the cabinet secretary at the time of the passage of the bill that Qualifications Scotland was simply going to be a renaming and rebranding of the SQA—a replating on the door. We warned the cabinet secretary at the time that we needed culture change, and it was not just us who gave that warning. We were simply quoting the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Morgan, Muir, and Hayward reports, and the national discussion document—all those reviews and reports that cost a fortune to conduct, and all of which concluded that we need urgency in reform.
As Martin Whitfield said, the children who are—
Can I have a question, Mr Kerr—
—currently in primary school will not see any change—
Mr Kerr, please resume your seat for a second. I was speaking. I asked you, because you are over your time, whether you could please pose a question. Could you please resume and pose a question? Thank you.
I was not aware that I had a time, and I was trying to finish my question when you interrupted, Deputy Presiding Officer.
You have around 45 seconds, Mr Kerr. Please ask your question.
I was simply making the point that we will see no change in the lifetime of the next session of Parliament. How can the cabinet secretary be satisfied with such inertia when she knows that change is urgently required?
The cabinet secretary will be aware that she has around a minute to respond.
I am well used to Mr Kerr’s warnings and of course I always listen to the advice that he provides me with, which is exactly why, in relation to qualifications reform, I was really keen that we had a schools unit with a designated secondary headteacher working with the profession, for all the good reasons that Mr Kerr has set out in relation to culture change.
I accept the points that he makes in relation to the reports, but I do not need him to recount reports to me, because I was in a school before I was in this place and I know that we need to do better in engaging with the profession. That is exactly why Sarah Brown has come out of a school to lead on that important work, alongside a plethora of other classroom teachers who are qualified to deliver it, as well as improving the communication and the culture that Mr Kerr spoke about.
It has taken too long, but I am pleased that the SQA was scrapped and replaced by Qualifications Scotland. However, I am indeed concerned about pace, because we are 10 years on from the big promise to reform Scottish education and we have seen hardly any improvement in that time. The real issue is partnership. How can we make sure that the new qualifications body works with the rest of the education system? The previous body was seen as intransigent and slow. What has the cabinet secretary done to improve that?
I thank Mr Rennie for his question and, of course, for supporting the successful passage of the bill. On the points that we have talked about today, we should be mindful that Qualifications Scotland does not sit on its own in a silo. It is required to work with other bodies, as Mr Rennie has rightly pointed to, such as Education Scotland and the centre for teaching excellence. I encourage Mr Rennie, if he has time between now and the end of March, to go to Glasgow, as I did last week, to meet the teachers who have been seconded to that centre and who speak with passion about the continuing professional development opportunities that it is giving them.
More broadly, in terms of how these organisations work together, Mr Rennie will be aware of the work that we are leading on education reform, which also links to Mr Macpherson’s responsibilities in this area, so we have a board that overlooks these bodies in their totality. I would be more than happy to set out a bit more detail on that to Mr Rennie later, as I am conscious of time today, but I assure him that there is oversight in relation to qualifications reform across the education portfolio; that oversight is not limited to schools and Qualifications Scotland.
Exam results for 2025 saw attainment rise across the board and an increase in the number of students achieving passes at all qualification levels. How is the Government working to ensure that any reform of the qualifications system continues to support the successes of Scotland’s learners?
I thank the member for highlighting the achievements of our young people. A record number of vocational and technical qualifications were achieved in 2025, and we know that pass rates for national 4, national 5, higher and advanced higher were up compared with 2024.
We are making important changes to our curriculum, qualifications and assessment system, but the reforms have to protect and build on the key strengths within our curriculum and our approach to qualifications. The changes will make some important and much-needed improvements, as we have heard today, in relation to the rebalancing of qualifications requirements, recognising the changes in our education system, particularly post-pandemic, and the fact that we need to support our young people and recognise their broader achievements.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes topical questions.
Previous
Business MotionNext
Prison Population