Chamber and committees

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I apologise—I should have declared an interest. My wife is a serving police officer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Eyemouth to Elgin, people are being attacked by gulls, but NatureScot does not record any of those instances. Does the minister believe that NatureScot should record that information and take cognisance of it when it approves or rejects licence applications?

In my question in response to the cabinet secretary’s statement yesterday, I mentioned the constructive meeting that I had with Dr Robert Lockhart from Elgin and his colleagues. Although the cabinet secretary gave me a positive response yesterday, he did not answer the specific points that I raised. I therefore ask him again: what percentage of the health budget is currently spent on general practice, and what percentage does he believe should be spent on it to allow GPs to deliver all the services that they believe they can?