Chamber and committees

I am not going to explain the fact that I have not conceded ground or why I think that we will get a much more substantial reform that will be done in an orderly fashion, which is the right approach for a body that will be new. It will be at its early stages, so it needs to be handled with care.

However, I am grateful to Stephen Kerr for resubmitting all the amendments that I lodged at stage 2, which I withdrew at that point, because I know that he wants the whole Parliament to have an opportunity to look at the brilliance of my amendments.

In addition, during the bill’s consideration, concerns about higher history in 2024 were discussed in detail by the committee, and the oversight arrangements of our national school qualifications came into the spotlight. I believe that it was unsatisfactory that the SQA, in effect, inspected itself, and therefore I am determined to get an orderly change.

Although there was no consensus on the scope or location of accreditation, there was an agreement that the current accreditation and quality assurance arrangements were unsatisfactory. I think that the cabinet secretary has genuinely moved from her original position on that: she was opposed to change, but now she is prepared to look in a substantial way at making substantial change.

I was of the view at that time, and committee members will have heard me say, that any of the options that we put forward was better than the status quo. However, there was still no agreement—and there is still no agreement today—on what should happen next. That was in part—this point is crucial—because the landscape is complex. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary and other members of the committee for the further time and consideration that they gave to address the complexity of those issues.

My amendments in this group provide a package of measures to address those concerns. Amendments 125, 156 and 169 specifically address the concerns that have been raised about higher history by focusing on the quality assurance—not accreditation—measures that qualifications Scotland will have in place in the future. As a package, those amendments combine an independent review of quality assurance processes, an annual compliance report and the establishment of an independent expert group to advise on qualifications standards.

Amendments 170 to 179 seek to improve and enhance section 25A, which covers the requirement that ministers undertake a statutory review of the scope and location of the accreditation function—not quality assurance.

At the start of the process, did Pam Duncan-Glancy know that accreditation does not cover school qualifications? Did she understand that? She did not make that clear at all. I have taken a lot of criticism today but, ultimately, the committee did not do its job properly at the early stages to have proper consideration that would ensure that reform would be done in an orderly fashion.

We need to make sure that we do responsible things in the Parliament. What has been proposed by Opposition members today is not an orderly reform. We need to have orderly reform for the sake of the new qualifications Scotland and our examination system.

It is interesting that Douglas Ross is complaining about the conduct of others. Nevertheless, it is important that we get to the substance of this. Mr Ross has spent five minutes or so discussing what has gone wrong in the past. Surely he should use the opportunity to discuss what his amendments propose, so that members can consider whether they are appropriate.

Flexibility around procurement rules and subsidy control is an age-old problem; we have debated that problem endlessly. What is new about what the Deputy First Minister is setting out today in respect of such flexibility? Is she offering real hope? Is there new flexibility? Can she spell out exactly what she is looking to find?

I get slightly offended when people imply that we cannot be in favour of strong defences and in favour of a moral and ethical foreign policy. I think that we can do both, and the Liberal Democrats have said that we can do both. Ed Davey has made it clear that we should suspend arms exports to Israel. Not everybody will agree with that position, but we have made it clear from the beginning that Israel has gone too far.

However, as Ed Davey has also made clear, we are in favour of having a strong defence back home, because we are on the north-west frontier of Europe. We are and will continue to be a key member of NATO, and that will be important for dealing with the threat of Russia, which provokes our defences almost every day of the week. We cannot pretend that, somehow, we are in a lazy backwater. We must have strong defences in this country. I favour that approach.

That leads me to the SNP’s position, which is confusing. I have listened to Angus Robertson for years. I listened to him when he was at Westminster, when he would talk endlessly about the defence underspend in Scotland. He put a number on that—in 2011, he said that £5.6 billion less was being spent in Scotland than he believed the population share should have been, implying that the UK should have been spending more in Scotland.

We then had, for a number of years, an SNP position that was in favour of diversification away from defence products and against munitions. We get a slightly different position today, which is a bit more sympathetic in tone, but, fundamentally, is exactly the same position, which favours diversification and is against munitions. Even so, the SNP position is for Scotland to remain a member of NATO if it ever becomes an independent country. That is utterly confusing.

If we are to have any hope of getting any of the coming investment into Scotland, we need to clarify that. We need certainty not only for businesses and those who are seeking to invest but for those who are seeking to branch out into a new career or train for the first time. If they want to know whether to go into the defence sector, they need certainty on there being jobs and opportunities in it.

We need to have clarity, because whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the Labour UK Government, one thing is for sure: it will be spending a significantly increased sum of money on defence. There are many opportunities for workers, people, communities and businesses in Scotland to take advantage of that.

I know Rosyth dockyard particularly well—I used to represent that area. It has just launched a new type of frigate, which the workers are very proud of. A host of jobs in Port Glasgow, Prestwick, Edinburgh and Dundee, and communities across the country, depend on defence spending.

If we are to take advantage of the increased investment to defend our country, which I believe is right to come here, we will have to get it sorted with the Scottish Government. We must be clear on exactly what its position is, because there is a danger that we will throw away the opportunity for growth. The last thing that we need is any further suppression of economic growth in Scotland. For the sake of our economy, for the sake of workers and for the sake of our defence, I plead with the Deputy First Minister to get that sorted.

I think that I like—[Interruption.]

I will see whether I can give way shortly.

I am afraid that I speak to a number of experts in that sector who believe that the Government is just not at the races when it comes to aligning the public services in a way in which digital processes can be used to bring uniformity and deliver efficiencies. Many experts out there are saying exactly that.

Daniel Johnson rose—

I am sorry, but I have only four minutes.

The main point that I want to make is that, to get our public finances back on track, we need to get our economy moving. The biggest problem that we have is the economic inactivity rate, which is at 24 per cent. In England, it is at 21 per cent, which is not much better, but the figure is just dreadful in Scotland. At the heart of that is getting the NHS into a position in which it can get back to work people who would work if they were able to do so. That is now about ailments of the mind, whereas in the past it was about ailments of the body.

We need to reorientate the NHS so that it is focused on economic productivity. That will make a tremendous difference to the taxes that we raise and to our ability to afford public services. If we can sort that, we will have achieved something in this Parliament.

I like this new Lorna Slater, who is outsourcing intelligence to artificial intelligence. We might see some new radical policies—perhaps even more radical than before.

I like a robust and colourful contribution in the chamber. I admire Craig Hoy for his approach to politics, because it is sometimes very entertaining and educational. However, I have to say that he took a kamikaze approach today. I was looking back at a headline in a newspaper in, I think, 2022. It said:

“Boris Johnson’s partygate scandal a ‘difference of opinion’, Craig Hoy says.”

He was dismissing the partygate scandal, somehow.

I think that it is reasonable to ask questions of Neil Gray—as long as we understand that we need to reflect on our own past comments and observations on our own party when doing so. For Craig Hoy to make that speech about economic and financial competence, given his party’s responsibility for Liz Truss, Brexit and even Boris Johnson, took a great degree of courage. I give him full credit for making that attempt this afternoon.

Public service reform should be boring. It should be boring, detailed and hard work to find out where efficiencies can be made. The more exciting that public service reform is, the more superficial it is—in such cases, it is more of a vote-catching effort than it is a real attempt at public service reform. I am afraid to say that Craig Hoy’s list today was just all eye catching, rather than a real attempt at changing the way in which public services operate.

The size of the state has increased—there is no doubt about that. What we need to work out is how we get it back down to pre-Covid levels. We need a detailed understanding of that. I hope that, tomorrow, the minister will set out a very clear programme of boring, detailed change that results in a difference, because it is the difference that really matters in the long run.

We also need digital and AI—this is perhaps where I agree with Lorna Slater—to be at the heart of the work that we are doing.

Daniel Johnson rose—

Sabhal Mòr Ostaig is one of our national institutions, and it should be valued, protected and supported. Clearly, SMO is important for the Gaelic language at home, but it also has an international reputation. In addition, it makes a significant contribution to education, culture and economic regeneration in an area of low population.

Discussions about the status of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig have been taking place for some time—some would say that they have gone on for too long. I believe that the review that was committed to at stage 2 is necessary and will provide all parties involved with the information that is needed to make the necessary decisions. Central to the review will be both the future status and the funding of SMO, and I look forward to the review being commissioned and to its recommendations.

Sabhal Mòr Ostaig has always been a place of commitment and ambition, and we need to take steps to protect and sustain its important contribution and independent status. My amendments strengthen the position that was agreed at stage 2 by placing a duty on ministers to take appropriate action

“to support the development of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig as the national centre for Gaelic language, education and culture in Scotland”,

as is stated in amendment 4.

My amendments clarify that conducting the review is part of exercising that duty. They specify what the review must consider, including SMO’s funding and the question whether SMO should be designated as a higher education institution in its own right. They set out that ministers will comply with the new duty in amendment 4 by taking the actions to support the development of SMO that are set out in the report on the review, in order to bring legal clarity.

Ross Greer and I had slightly competing amendments at stage 2. I wanted to move straight to giving SMO the status of a small, specialist higher education institution; he was in favour of the more considered approach of reviewing the evidence and reaching a conclusion. Our amendments were consistent in many ways, and I have tried to work on the proposals through discussions with the cabinet secretary, her officials and Ross Greer. There were some concerns about what the “small specialist institution” status would mean for Sabhal Mòr Ostaig and whether it would enhance SMO’s funding arrangements. However, with amendment 4 and the review, I am trying to move SMO towards greater freedom, enhanced support and the partnership that will be required among the various institutions. There is no doubt that we need to bring benefits to Sabhal Mòr Ostaig to secure its future.

My new amendments bring the two amendments from stage 2 together, and, from what I can gather, everybody is quite content. Sabhal Mòr Ostaig is content with the review process being strengthened, and I believe that the Deputy First Minister is content. Even the Minister for Higher and Further Education, Graeme Dey, is content, which is quite a rare thing to happen. Members should grasp the opportunity and support my amendments this afternoon.

I move amendment 4.