Jackie Dunbar
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“I do not believe for one second that Reform UK cares about people like me; it cares about division and power, and crypto donations from dodgy billionaires. Reform UK does not represent me—it disgusts me. I am under no illusion that folk are frustrated at so much of what is happening, and not happening, in the world today.”
“Some folk who have never struggled before are now struggling, and some folk who have struggled their whole lives now doubt that things will ever get better for them. They are seeing the consequences of austerity, of a lack of investment in jobs and of a lack of spending in their local communities.”
“Anyway, I appreciate that the low-emission zones policy might inconvenience Baron Offord of Garvel, depending on which of his five cars he is driving at the time, but it will add years to the life expectancies of thousands of Scots.”
“At this point, I will take an intervention from any Reform MSP who wants to tell us whether they think that their party is too racist or not racist enough. George Adam: Oh—nothing! Jackie Dunbar: Perhaps I will use some different quotes: “I told you time and time again, I’m protecting the country”. “Enough is enough. I have had enough”.”
“The same folk who were leading the fight against “benefit scroungers” a decade ago when they were in the Conservative Party are now in Reform UK saying that we should “look after our own”. Maybe I am just not seeing what Reform MSPs are believing.”
“I wonder whether the MSPs who have been joining “street patrols” or the ones calling people “strangers” might see some similarities, too. I am not expecting them to stand up and hold their hands up, but those who are capable of quiet reflection may wish to try it.”
The complete record
Every one of 437 lines we hold for Jackie Dunbar, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 9.
“Phase 3 will identify improvement needs, including those requiring national action. Additionally, a national report and improvement programme will be provided to the Government to support better outcomes for children and young people.”
“The national review that is being carried out by the inspectorates is vital—particularly its third phase, which is on improvement. Will the cabinet secretary assure me that that work will continue alongside the inquiry and that, if changes in practices or processes are identified as necessary, they will be made? Jenny Gilruth: I very much agree with Jackie Dunbar. The inspectorate-led review is critical. In the phase 1 assessment, the inspectorates are scrutinising the data and the evidence from all local authorities on the threat and risk of group- based abuse and exploitation. Phase 2, which is about assurance, will use those findings to carry out targeted scrutiny to identify strengths and weaknesses in local prevention, identification and response arrangements.”
“As the member rightly said, at present, macroeconomic, fiscal, migration and other levers, in particular in relation to the oil and gas industry in her constituency, all lie with the UK Government, and the policy levers lie with the UK Government as well. If we had more powers in the Scottish Parliament, and if we were an independent state with full economic levers allowing us to work with the global community, we would be able to deliver a far more prosperous economy and a far more prosperous Scotland. Finance and Local Government”
“Scotland’s economy is being hammered by a UK Government that is out of touch with Scotland’s needs. Rising employer national insurance contributions, the lack of support for Scotland’s industries and the energy profits levy are costing jobs and investment and are putting the security of a just transition and Scotland’s future at risk. Does the minister agree that strategic delivery for Scotland’s economy requires an end to the reckless economic decisions that have been taken south of the border? Richard Lochhead: Yes, and I hope that those in the Labour Party and the UK Government are listening, because Labour’s poll standing reflects the fact that it is not looking after the Scottish economy.”
“The news that Donald Russell is to close its operations in Inverurie is devastating for its workers and their families across Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen city. It is yet another example of a business that is struggling to cope with sky-high energy costs, which have soared on the Labour United Kingdom Government’s watch. Does the First Minister share my concerns that businesses in energy-rich Scotland are paying the highest price in broken Brexit Britain? Will he commit to engaging with the workforce and trade unions at the earliest opportunity?”
“Multiyear-funded organisations now have a base in 27 local authority areas, and 35 per cent of organisations operate beyond their home postcodes, which provides communities across Scotland with access to the arts.”
“I welcome the record local government settlement in the budget and the Scottish Government’s continued commitment to uplifting the culture budget. Does the cabinet secretary agree that our communities are richer for our culture, and can he say any more about how that investment will support the arts and creative industries across Scotland? Angus Robertson: The Scottish Government is delivering an additional £20 million in funding for culture in 2026-27, which is the next major step in honouring our commitment to provide an additional £100 million annually for culture by 2028-29. That takes the total annual increase in the culture budget to £70 million since 2023-24, and the additional funding has allowed Creative Scotland to offer multiyear funding to a record number of cultural organisations.”
“Douglas Ross: Further to that point of order, it was not about the rubbish that we heard from the cabinet secretary. If she said that subjects were previously mentioned whereas they were not, would that require a correction to the Official Report because she was making things up? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Ross, as I have already explained, the substance of the contributions of members, including the cabinet secretary, is not a matter for the chair. It was entirely a matter for the cabinet secretary to contribute in the way that she chose. That is not a point of order. 17:01”
“Douglas Ross: On a point of order, Presiding Officer, which I genuinely think this is. The cabinet secretary was very clear that she does not use pre- scripted remarks and that her closing would be a summation of everything that was said in the debate. She went on to reference things that were not mentioned in the debate, such as the cost of VIP policing. If the Official Report shows that that was not mentioned in the debate, despite the fact that the cabinet secretary claimed that her remarks were unscripted, would that require a clarification to the Official Report? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I thank Mr Ross for his contribution. That is not a point of order. The chair is not responsible for the contributions of other members, including cabinet secretaries.”
“Liam Kerr: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Angela Constance: Nope—no thank you. Of course, as we have seen from evidence submitted by Police Scotland, increased specialism is required to tackle serious organised crime, which Police Scotland, I can assure members, does very well. Increased specialism is also required to investigate sexual crimes. National security and counter-terrorism activity also place a demand on policing in Scotland. Claire Baker: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Angela Constance: No. At the same time, we have to ensure that we have a balance between those areas and good community policing, which is about prevention. There is a connection between specialism and policing on the ground in our communities. Therefore, let us start having a debate about the future of policing in Scotland, as opposed to the past.”
“Serious assault and attempted murder have dropped by 60 per cent; housebreaking has dropped by 77 per cent; theft of motor vehicles is down by 69 per cent; vandalism is down by 73 per cent—those are all figures from 2006-07 to last year—and homicide is at its lowest level since records began, in 1976. Further, more people report feeling safe while walking in their own community. In contrast to that—this is where I will be even- handed, as always—reports of violence against women and girls are up. Is that because of confidence in our justice system? In part it is, but could it also be because it remains a hidden issue? Cybercrime is a growing concern, as is online safety. Shoplifting is also a growing concern, which is why we are prepared to invest £3 million every year in that area for the next three years.”
“I have not seen anyone standing up to Starmer on those issues. Pauline McNeill: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Angela Constance: No, I will not. The other thing that Opposition members will never say is by how much they will increase the policing resource or the head count. Instead, we will get figures plucked from thin air and discussions about how they would release officers back to the front line. What always strikes me with sadness is that, when we have a justice debate, particularly a debate on policing, we tend to debate the past as opposed to the future. Liam Kerr: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Angela Constance: Absolutely not. I will be even-handed and balanced on the issue of police-recorded crimes.”
“Douglas Ross: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Angela Constance: Absolutely not—no thank you. I want to make the point that, when I listen very carefully, I also take a close interest in what people are not saying or doing. To the best of my knowledge, there were no justice asks in the negotiations or discussions that Opposition spokespeople had with the finance team. Instead, what I hear in the chamber is people opting out and then complaining. Every member in the chamber has to recognise that they all have power and influence that can make a difference. As some members have mentioned, we have Labour’s tax on jobs with the increase in the employer national insurance contribution, which has certainly represented a financial cost to policing. Further, there is the bill for the protection of VIPs during the state visit last summer.”
“Ultimately, it leaves communities exposed to criminals in a world in which crime is becoming less predictable and more devastating. After almost two decades of negligence, officers and the people they are charged with protecting deserve more. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs to close on behalf of the Government. You have up to five minutes, Ms Constance. 16:55 Angela Constance: I always listen very carefully to all members’ contributions in any debate, and I rarely read out a pre-prepared speech when closing—instead, I am always trying to read my own handwriting. Also, I refuse to play games—I am too old to fool around—and I certainly do not let anyone, or, indeed, any man, put words in my mouth. I will exercise my right to use my five minutes in this debate as I see fit.”
“As the motion suggests, community policing is being deliberately and relentlessly eroded. That means that impressionable young people who might be on the fence when it comes to getting involved in offending have fewer positive role models nearby who might just talk them out of a life of crime. Officers who might have been able to build positive relationships in sometimes challenging communities are simply not there any more. Pauline McNeill spoke of the increase in young people carrying knives, which is a huge concern. The SNP’s inexplicable destruction of our police force has no winners. It leaves officers ill- equipped, underprepared and overburdened, which puts them at an unacceptable risk on the front line and leaves them more vulnerable to ill health, both physical and mental.”
“That was not an answer. Liam Kerr: It was an answer. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Members! Please listen to the member who has the floor. Sharon Dowey: It is not just the officers who have felt the brunt. The Police Scotland estate is also being subjected to a fundraising fire sale, as Davy Russell mentioned in his contribution. All over Scotland, local stations are closing, which is resulting in the disappearance of a police presence in towns and villages that have enjoyed having strong local officers for generations, and the buildings that are left over are in dire need of repair. It is a disgrace that police officers are expected to operate from such despicable environments, especially at the end, or in the middle, of unbearably gruelling shifts on the front line.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to reduce NHS waiting times through its draft budget 2026-27. (S6O-05493)”
“To ask the Scottish Government how it envisages its draft Scottish budget 2026-27 will support families in the Aberdeen Donside constituency to address cost of living pressures, including childcare costs. (S6O-05460)”
“The report lays bare the stark outlook for Aberdeen if it is left in the hands of a Labour Government that is apparently intent on the deindustrialisation of Scotland and content to risk thousands of jobs in the energy sector.”
“Ben Higgins from the Restraint Reduction Network summed that up pretty well: “I think it is good practice that when a child falls over and gets a scratch, a mark, a bump or a bruise, the parents are informed. Why would that not apply in the case of restraint or seclusion?”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 24 September 2025; c 44.] There is broad agreement about the principles of this bill and the changes that we want to see, so let us get it moving forward and continue our efforts to make Scotland the best country in the world in which to grow up—for every child. 15:20”
“I will use my remaining time to highlight some of the changes that we are keen to see. We would like to see the definitions of “restraint” and “seclusion” being tightened up and refined, because there is a fear that the bill’s current broad definitions of those terms could cause legal ambiguity and unintended consequences. Some of our witnesses were keen to see examples being included. Such an approach cuts both ways, because examples can also make clear what is not included in a definition—for example, that giving someone a bosie is not restraint—but we maybe need to make that part of the bill clearer. The other key change that I fully support is ensuring that parents and carers are informed on the same day—or within 24 hours—that restraint or seclusion has taken place.”
“If we were to wait, the bill would be pushed into the next session of Parliament to restart its progress, and so we would be pressing the pause button on much of the good that the bill seeks to achieve. The idea of not letting the perfect become the enemy of the good probably sums up where I am on the issue of timing. The bill could be made better if the review had been completed by now, but it has not, and I cannot justify pausing the bill until that happens. I am pleased that the committee recommended that, if the bill should pass, its provisions should not commence until after the review is finished. Thankfully, other reports are available to inform any changes to the bill, one of which is the stage 1 report from the Education, Children and Young People Committee.”
“A few months before the bill was introduced, the Scottish Government published guidance on the use of physical intervention in schools, and there is a fairly substantial overlap between that guidance and the bill’s provisions. The guidance was introduced in November 2024 and its one- year review is currently under way, with the final report expected in March. Clearly, the bill intends to go further than guidance would, but, in an ideal world, and given the overlap in the subject matter, we would want to see that report before proceeding with, or completing, our work on the bill. The bill would be stronger for it, and the results for young folk would be better, but our timelines will not allow for that before the Parliament dissolves for the election.”
“I, too, congratulate Daniel Johnson and thank him for bringing the bill to the Parliament. I also thank my colleagues on the Education, Children and Young People Committee, our clerks and those who gave evidence to us. As other members who have already spoken have said, our particular thanks should go to Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger, who have worked tirelessly on the issue of restraint and seclusion in Scotland’s schools. This is a good bill. There is widespread recognition of the need to do more about restraint and seclusion in schools, and the bill is largely helpful on that. I fear that its timing might prevent the bill from being the best that it could be, but that does not mean that I am against it.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how it is working to support Scottish businesses, in light of the potential impact of additional US trade tariffs on the Scottish economy. (S6O-05442)”
“Let us support our learners to better themselves so that they can go on to build a better Scotland. 20:34”
“The bill now allows for a review of the credit-based funding model for colleges. There will now be a requirement for governing body members and senior officers at institutions to declare conflicts of interest. More will be done to ensure that further and higher education institutions operate with transparency and accountability as a condition of funding. More will be done to protect whistleblowers and to ensure that there is better engagement with trade unions and students. New powers will also be introduced for the SFC to limit fees for apprenticeship managing agents. Let us get on with it. Let us get the bill passed. Let us modernise how money gets to colleges, universities and training providers. Let us ensure that folk can get the skills and training that they need.”
“Our colleges, universities and other training providers are tasked with equipping people—whether they are young people who are leaving school or those who want to retrain and take a new path—with the skills and qualifications that they can use to find their way in life, whether they use those to find a good-quality, well-paid job, to establish their own business or even to find a voluntary role. Folk want to contribute to our economy and to our society. The bill will help them to get the skills that they need. Colleges, universities, apprenticeships and other training all help folk to improve their skill set. Therefore, it seems appropriate that I should talk about how the bill has itself been improved since it was first introduced. I will list some of the amendments that have been included in the bill.”
“Thankfully, the Scottish Government has stepped up to support training and retraining in our city, not least through its oil and gas transition training fund and by helping to fund North East Scotland College’s energy transition skills hub. That means that, whether the workers in my Aberdeen Donside constituency work in oil and gas or in renewables, they will continue to have the skills that are needed to power our nation and economy. Let us get back to the bill that is in front of us. The bill will ensure that funding goes where it matters most: to supporting skills, to driving innovation, to ensuring that our economy has the talented workforce that it needs and to giving every learner the opportunity to thrive.”
“So often in the chamber, we talk about Scotland’s future and building a better country for the next generation. The bill is not just about building a future for the next generation but about ensuring that they have the skills and knowledge to build their own future. Of course, the bill is not only about young folk. There are plenty of people who enter or re-enter tertiary education and training later in life for all sorts of reasons. Goodness knows that there are plenty of people in the Aberdeen area who have had to reskill and retrain in recent years, first because of the downturn that was caused by oil prices being too low and then because of the downturn that was caused by the windfall tax because oil prices were briefly too high.”
“As in the stage 1 debate, I thank the committee clerks, the witnesses, the ministers—former and present—and the officials. I also thank my fellow committee members for their work in scrutinising the bill. As members can imagine, there was more work to be done as we moved from the general principles of the bill to the nitty-gritty, so I add a little more thanks to reflect that. I am disappointed—but not surprised—that some members are not supporting the bill. I am not surprised, because, in the two years that I have been on the committee, I do not think that Labour has yet supported a stage 1 general principles report. It does not matter what the subject of a bill is—Labour will amend it a great deal, but it will not support it. However, I will repeat what I said at the start of my stage 1 speech on the bill.”
“I also urge Parliament to vote for my amendments 62 and 63.”
“I have engaged with a number of employers and employer bodies, and the business community more generally, since stage 1, and I want to do all that I can to give employers and businesses confidence in the new arrangements. Amendment 96 will create the possibility of additional capacity by allowing for a further two members of the SFC. In that context, I am content to support amendment 94 alongside amendment 96. Amendment 94A would increase the employer representation from two members to three. I think that that would go too far given that there might be only 11 other members on the SFC. I ask Willie Rennie not to move his amendments 94A and 95. If he moves them, I encourage members to vote against them. However, I am very supportive of his amendments 94, 96 and 97, and I urge Parliament to vote for them.”
“Given that the SFC will be taking on significant new responsibilities for apprenticeships and work-based learning, I support increasing the maximum number to 16 and will therefore support amendment 96. Willie Rennie’s amendment 94 notably departs from the approach that is taken in the 2005 act and the bill, as it provides that ministers “must include at least 2 members who appear to the Scottish Ministers to represent the interests of employers”. It is important to note that it would be “at least” two members, because it could well end up being the case that many other members of the board would have experience of business. I can see why Willie Rennie lodged amendment 94. I know that some employers are concerned about the SFC taking on the responsibilities and what it will mean for apprenticeships.”
“19:00 Willie Rennie’s amendment 97 complements my amendments in the group in that it makes provision about consideration of the “skills, knowledge or experience” of individuals who are appropriate to chair the apprenticeship committee. That amendment sits well with Willie Rennie’s amendment 109 in the next group, which requires the Scottish ministers to provide the SFC with guidance on appointment of the chair of the apprenticeship committee. The 2005 act requires the SFC to include at least 11 members and up to 14 members, as well as a chair and the chief executive. Willie Rennie’s amendments 95 and 96 seek to increase the maximum number of members that ministers may appoint to the SFC to 15 or 16. They would not require that number of members, but they allow for a larger governing body.”
“The list includes persons who are representative of learners, employees of the SFC and employees of any bodies or persons receiving payments from the SFC. I would emphasise that the amendments are framed with the phrase “have regard to the desirability of”. As a result, ministers are not required to appoint individuals who meet those specific criteria; instead, they are to take those criteria into account alongside the full skills matrix of the members of the SFC. The members of the SFC will make decisions collectively, with each member contributing their own skills and experience. We must not lose sight of the need to ensure that the SFC has sufficient expertise in key areas to meet its governance requirements. Of course, those might well be met by candidates who also represent the key interests that are listed in amendments 62 and 63.”
“Ben Macpherson: This is a really important group of amendments, and I am grateful to colleagues who have lodged amendments in it. My amendments 62 and 63 respond directly to amendments lodged by Pam Duncan-Glancy, Daniel Johnson, Ross Greer and Miles Briggs at stage 2 on who should be appointed to the SFC. I acknowledged the intention behind those amendments at stage 2 and that it was helpful to have pointers to what we, as ministers, should consider when appointing SFC members. However, I said at the time that it would not normally be helpful for legislation to bind ministers’ decisions in that regard. That said, I have carefully considered the matter since stage 2 and have arrived at what I think— and hope—is a balanced list of persons that ministers shall, and should, consider.”
“The amendment is a bit looser than the member has suggested, but I would say that, in the first instance, the chair of the apprenticeship committee should be somebody from that background, in order to build confidence. I think that this feeds into wider concerns, because we need a Funding Council that is seen to be part of the business community. However, its very name does not reflect the apprenticeship role that it is about to take on. I hope that the council can reflect that and communicate to the hundreds—indeed, thousands—of employers across the country that this is their body and that it will be dealing with their apprentices, to ensure that their training needs are met for the future. I move amendment 94.”
“However, I do think that, at least in the first instance, the chair should be an employer— that is, someone from business or someone who has taken on a lot of apprentices—to give, if nothing else, confidence to the business community, which is doubting whether there is any real value in this bill. It needs to be convinced that the new Funding Council—the new arrangement— actually understands the needs of employers and business, to ensure that apprentices do not get lost in the Funding Council apparatus. As we know, the Funding Council has not had its troubles to seek in recent years, so we need to ensure that apprenticeships are a central part of what it does, that there is confidence in the wider community and that apprenticeships have an important place in the education and training landscape in Scotland.”
“What I am struggling with in amendment 97—and I would appreciate the member clarifying exactly his intention here—is that it reads to me that the chair would have to come from a business background, which would preclude, say, an experienced former college principal chairing the apprenticeship committee. Is the member’s intention that the chair has to come from a business background? I certainly think that there is value in having people from that background— indeed, it is essential to have them on the committee—but I feel that it is needlessly restrictive to say that the chair must come from a particular background when other individuals would have a lot to contribute in that role. Willie Rennie: The amendment is slightly looser than that, because the phrase used is “have regard to”.”
“Amendment 97 seeks to ensure that ministers “have regard to” making sure that a suitable person to chair the apprenticeship committee is appointed to the Funding Council—that is, someone who has knowledge of and expertise in business but who also has the experience of employing apprentices. That person would be appointed to the Funding Council with a view to their potentially being the chair of the apprenticeship committee. The amendment is connected with amendment 109, in the next group, which relates to the employment and appointment of the chair of the apprenticeship committee. Ross Greer: I have sympathy with the member’s broad intention and what he is trying to do, and the Greens will certainly support amendment 94 to ensure that employers have that voice.”
“Does he recognise that we would essentially be reducing that to just two or three members of a much wider board? There is a risk that we would lose that direct employer and industry voice in shaping how apprenticeships and skills are delivered and conceived. Willie Rennie: We will address some of that in the final debate, because it affects the whole of the bill and its purpose and value, whether it be value for money or delivering the effect as desired by the Withers review. As the member has said, this is a step in the right direction. I hope that the Government is able to accept my amendment, which seeks to make at least two members of the Funding Council employers, in order to guarantee that strong voice in the council and to ensure that some of these concerns are addressed.”
“Willie Rennie: This group of amendments is about membership of the Scottish Funding Council. They seek to address directly the widespread concerns that exist in the business community and among employers about the abolition of the Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board and the change from Skills Development Scotland, with which many employers had a good working relationship. I have therefore lodged amendments that seek to put in place two or three members of the council who are employers and who have experience in the apprenticeships space. Daniel Johnson: I recognise that the amendments seek a step forward in ensuring that there is an employer voice. The member noted the function of SDS, which was able to reflect a broader range of industry concerns across a wider board and come up with solutions.”
“Amendment 58 disagreed to. Section 12A—Council to have regard to particular matters Amendment 59 moved—[Ben Macpherson]— and agreed to. Section 12B—Consultation and collaboration with employers of Scottish apprentices and training providers Amendment 60 moved—[Ben Macpherson]— and agreed to. Section 12C—Widening access to fundable further and higher education: sharing of information Amendment 61 moved—[Ben Macpherson]— and agreed to. After section 14 The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 13 is on membership of the council. Amendment 94, in the name of Willie Rennie, is grouped with amendments 94A, 95, 96, 62, 63 and 97. Amendments 95 and 96 are direct alternatives, so they can both be moved and decided on. The text of whichever is the last agreed to will appear in the bill.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jackie Dunbar] Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 46, Against 72, Abstentions 0.”
“I understand the points that Stephen Kerr is making, but his amendment would narrow the functions of the SFC and unhelpfully limit the purpose of post-school training in education. Ensuring that it meets the needs of our economy is hugely important, but education cannot become that transactional. There is a strong need to support the wider societal benefits of post-16 training, education and skills development. I therefore cannot support Stephen Kerr’s amendment 58. I press amendment 51. Amendment 51 agreed to. Amendments 52 to 55 moved—[Ben Macpherson]—and agreed to. Amendment 56 moved—[Jackie Dunbar]—and agreed to. Amendment 57 moved—[Ben Macpherson]— and agreed to. Section 12—Consideration of skills needs and socio-economic issues Amendment 58 moved—[Stephen Kerr].”
“The amendment seeks to ensure that that mindset does not stop at apprenticeships but runs through how the council exercises its functions more broadly. Amendment 58 is modest, reasonable and grounded in reality. It would strengthen the bill without complicating it and would help to ensure that the expanded powers of the council are exercised with a clear, unimpeded line of sight to economic need and opportunity. For those reasons, I will move the amendment in due course and ask that colleagues support it. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Jackie Dunbar to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 51. Jackie Dunbar: I welcome the minister’s amendments, which take us as far as we can go on fair work with our devolved powers.”
“That alignment works only if employers are consistently and consciously factored in to how decisions are made. I stress that amendment 58 would not elevate employers above learners, colleges or providers. It would not hand veto powers to business interests—that would be ridiculous. It seeks to ensure that, when the council is making decisions about funding priorities or delivery models, it considers how those decisions land in the workplace. That is what amendment 58 is all about. Amendment 58 also complements other changes in the bill—at least, the amendments that I have previously lodged. We have already agreed that employers should be involved in apprenticeship frameworks and labour market assessments, even though they will not be writ large in the bill.”
“Perhaps we already have too much of that in our economy. We see apprenticeships that are well intentioned but poorly matched to the labour market. That is an unwanted consequence of not rooting the system in the real economy and we will perpetuate the gap between education policy and economic reality that Scotland has struggled with for years. That was part of the purpose behind the review on post-school education and training, which was supposed to create a brand-new world. The bill does not do that. Amendment 58 is about closing the gap between the world of rarefied theory and the reality of where jobs are. From my perspective, this is simply common sense. Economic growth and economic activity do not happen by accident. They happen when education and skills policy are aligned with enterprise, innovation and investment.”
“As the Scottish Funding Council takes on an expanded role, there is a risk—not theoretical but practical—that decision making drifts inward, towards process, structures and internal coherence, and away from the people who ultimately make the system work, who are the employers. 18:45 Amendment 58 seeks to require the council, when exercising its functions, to have explicit regard to Scotland’s employers. That matters, because employers are not an optional stakeholder in skills policy. They are the end users of the system. They create the jobs; invest in training; take on apprentices; and translate skills into productivity, wages and growth. If we get that relationship wrong, the consequences are predictable: we end up with qualifications that look impressive but do not align with demand.”