Chamber and committees

[Inaudible.]

My card was not in the console—a schoolboy error.

Members: Oh!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I move amendment 1.

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

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Section 4—The accreditation function

I am not sure whether it is good or bad that it takes Parliament to sit until a quarter to 10 just for Ross Greer and Stephen Kerr to find some agreement and common ground, but that may be an achievement for this evening.

I offer my support for Roz McCall’s amendment 206.

I express concern about Ross Greer’s amendment 205, however, because I think that there has been no consultation on his proposals—a point that Jackie Dunbar rightly tried to make. In addition, I am not sure how the chief inspector would take forward an inspection regime with the home education community, as that has not been consulted on. I welcome what Ross Greer is trying to achieve through amendment 205 and the potential for future consideration in that respect, but Scottish Conservatives do not support his amendments as a group.

I have brought back my amendment 200 from stage 2. It relates to petition PE1979, which is currently going through Parliament, and it would allow Scottish ministers to set out further detail by regulations, including how inspections should address safeguarding, how complaints could be made to the chief inspector and what actions the inspector would be able to take in response. It contains an important change, which I hope that the cabinet secretary has considered beyond stage 2, because I believe that we need a system across education and children’s services that looks at complaints that are made in relation to child protection and safeguarding functions.

I look forward to hearing what the cabinet secretary has to say before I decide whether to move my amendment, as I would like to know whether the Government will take the matter forward in improved guidance. That is important for the petitioners, who are still pushing for the wider change that they hope to see.

It has been a long day.

I admire what the member has tried to achieve, but does she not accept that a stand-alone bill would be needed to set up a new organisation? We cannot add it on to this bill. That is why we cannot support the amendments.

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

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

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

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

I totally agree, which was why I wanted to bring the amendment back at stage 3. I had hoped for more engagement from the Government on a workable amendment of its own, but, as that did not happen, I have brought my amendment back. I hope that, if it is not agreed to, we will have a commitment for guidance on the matter. The work that many campaigners across the parties are taking forward in this area is important. The issue may not sit specifically in this bill, but I hope that it will be considered in the next session of Parliament.

Stephen Kerr’s amendments may also be considered if there is an opportunity to address whistleblowing more widely. Given that we have implemented a whistleblowing policy for the national health service, I am not quite sure why we would not have one for education and children’s services. I think that there is an opportunity to address that—if not in this bill, then in the next session of Parliament.