Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 5 July 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1182 contributions

|

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Portfolio Question Time

Meeting date: 26 June 2025

Willie Rennie

The use of 15-minute timetables—that is, 15 minutes per day—to avoid formal exclusion is simply tokenistic. Third sector bodies have been clear that there are instances where that occurs in many parts of the country without the young person having appropriate wraparound support for the rest of the day.

Can the minister provide us with a guarantee that that will be thoroughly investigated, to ensure that care-experienced young people get the educational support that they deserve?

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Portfolio Question Time

Meeting date: 25 June 2025

Willie Rennie

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s clarification. In future, will he consider working with the UK Government on the transport of such medical supplies so that they are sent with no conditions, such as those that the minister set out in his response? It is important that we give the Ukrainian authorities as much flexibility as possible to use the medical supplies in the areas where they are needed.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Education (Scotland) Bill

Meeting date: 25 June 2025

Willie Rennie

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.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Education (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Willie Rennie

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

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

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

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

I hope that members are following this.

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

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

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

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Education (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Willie Rennie

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

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Education (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Willie Rennie

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

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

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

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

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

University of Dundee Finances (Gillies Review)

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Willie Rennie

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

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

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

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Education (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Willie Rennie

Will the member take an intervention?

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Education (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Willie Rennie

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

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Education (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Willie Rennie

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

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

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