Stephen Kerr
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“My first priority is to prevent crime before it happens and, as a consequence, to reduce the number of victims. Therefore, the Government will continue to intervene early to steer people away from crime and focus on areas such as substance dependency, health, poverty, homelessness and employability, which are all significant contributing…”
“Alongside more places, a smarter approach to custody is needed, and I remain committed to using all levers at our disposal, including continuing to expand the use of home detention curfew, which supports reintegration of individuals by providing for their structured return to the community.”
“I expect HMP Highland to be completed in spring 2027— which is later than planned, due to construction issues—and HMP Glasgow, which I visited last week, is due to be completed in 2028.”
“I recognise that the proposed changes are bold, and I hope that they can contribute to a thoughtful debate today on the consequences of not addressing the rise in our prison population. The outcomes of any sentence for a crime committed should be that justice is served and no further reoffending happens.”
“That is why my priority is the prevention of crime and further reoffending behaviour. That approach makes financial sense: every prison place costs us more than £52,000 a year; this financial year, we are spending nearly £510 million in resource funding for the Scottish Prison Service to run our jails.”
“Yi-pei Chou Turvey sums things up very well. This whole issue has been at the bottom of the to-do list—that is exactly where we are. The title of the Government’s motion, which is the subject of today’s debate, is: “Achieving a sustainable prison population”. We can all share that perfectly reasonable objective.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,212 lines we hold for Stephen Kerr, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 25.
“Stephen Kerr: The reason why we have those levels of debt might be the nonsense that has been spoken by Kevin Stewart and other members on his side of the chamber when it comes to more and more spending, more and more borrowing and more and more tax. That is the only answer that the parties on the left have to the problems that we face as a country—both Scotland and the UK—as we can see from the travesty of financial and economic mismanagement by Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer. There are many other things that I would like to say, but I want to pay compliments, as is right and proper, to my colleague Roz McCall. She spoke as a compassionate Conservative, and she spoke about the facts. There we go—we are back to facts again. I have reintroduced SNP members to facts. Roz McCall reminded us that the facts of economic life are conservative.”
“Being part of the United Kingdom is a very good deal for Scotland, and I am very proud of that fact. By the way, we are not banning women from having children—I have never heard such nonsense. That speech needs to be fed through some artificial intelligence somewhere to find out whether there is any logic or reason in it. I can tell Kevin Stewart for a fact that, frankly, his idea that we should be ashamed is far from the truth. Kevin Stewart: Will the member give way? Stephen Kerr: For entertainment purposes and no other reason, I will. Kevin Stewart: Mr Kerr is proud of the union, but is he proud of the £41,572.17 of debt for every man, woman and child that has been put in play by his beloved Westminster and the union?”
“It might be a good exercise for minister McKee—and for all the Scottish ministers—to look in the bathroom mirror every morning, when they get up, and repeat to themselves 10 times, “Facts are chiels that winna ding”, because no matter how often they stand up and deny the facts, the facts will remain. They can move themselves to any position that they like and any fantasy that they wish to entertain, but the facts are the facts. While I am on the theme of facts, let me address directly a comment that was made by Kevin Stewart. He said that the majority of the people of Scotland who do not want to break up the United Kingdom are too stupid. We should have that clipped and put on social media 24 hours a day. I tell him that the people of Scotland are not too stupid, and they know a good deal when they see it.”
“I particularly liked her fact 6, which was that the business community knows exactly how it feels about how the Scottish Government is managing our public finances. Liz Smith talked about facts. A well-known Burns phrase that is often repeated from various places in the chamber is: “Facts are chiels that winna ding.” That is the whole problem for the SNP in this debate—the facts are the facts. For example, SNP members criticise the GERS report, but it is the Scottish Government that produced the report. It is their Government that says what it says. Those are the facts and they cannot be argued with. We were only a few seconds into the debate before minister McKee was on his feet contesting something that Murdo Fraser had said.”
“I reinforce what Murdo Fraser said to the Deputy First Minister: the reason why the Scottish Conservatives brought the motion to Parliament for debate today is that this is a very serious situation. A former colleague who is now appearing in a different place said that we should have an adult conversation, and we should. However, in all honesty, could the Deputy First Minister or Ivan McKee possibly think that the speeches that we heard from their back benchers this afternoon were serious? They were hardly serious at all. It was like they were doing a stand- up routine—they were practically unhinged in the way that they conducted themselves and the arguments that they put before the chamber. One of the most remarkable speeches that we heard today—there were a number from those on this side of the chamber—was from Liz Smith.”
“You have to. Ivan McKee: I hear Conservative members shouting that we have to do that. Of course we do. The point is that we do it—we deliver that every year—which requires us to manage the budgets that we have in front of us effectively and efficiently. That does not happen by itself. Enormous pressures have been placed on public and household finances by prolonged Westminster austerity; the economic damage of Brexit, which costs us £2.3 billion in public sector revenues every year; the Covid pandemic; the war in Ukraine and the energy crisis, which has been made worse by both UK Governments during the past few years; and inflation shocks. However, this Government has deployed every lever at our disposal to ensure that we stay true to our values and deliver for the people of Scotland while delivering a balanced budget.”
“I had recognised it in the statement that I gave to the Parliament, and I recognised it in both my original and supplementary answers to Daniel Johnson. Of course there is a need for data and for understanding of it, but health boards hold that data. As I have stated and have indicated previously to the Parliament, my officials have been engaging directly with health boards to understand the range of data that is available and, importantly, how that data can be used and applied for the benefit of children and young people. NHS Dumfries and Galloway 4.”
“The minister’s response to Daniel Johnson sums up this Scottish National Party Government. How can he, as a minister, possibly be part of the solution when he does not even ask for the data? How can the minister possibly be able to put forward ideas, policies or anything at all if there is no data? Will the minister now ask the 14 health boards for the data? If necessary, will he put in his own freedom of information requests to find out what the data is? This is simply unacceptable. Tom Arthur: That is interesting, because Mr Kerr asked me a question on the matter when I gave a statement to the Parliament at the end of June. The point that he made about the importance of data to understanding the landscape and developing policy is important. I recognised that point then.”
“The homelessness prevention support that we provide is for everybody in this country. Funding (Arts and Public Performance Venues) 7.”
“Stephen Kerr: Scotland’s biggest city is enveloped in a homelessness crisis that is impacting all of Central Scotland. Some 44 per cent of people who present as homeless in Glasgow come from asylum seeker households. Asylum seeker families also make up more than half of all temporary accommodation placements and account for more than 60 per cent of the children who are in such housing. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the Scottish National Party policy of open borders would only make the housing emergency worse? Màiri McAllan: Stephen Kerr, not for the first time in this chamber, should be utterly ashamed of the contribution that he has made. Given his colleague Craig Hoy’s contribution about a change of “character” in the south of Scotland, he, too, should be ashamed. Scotland is an open, welcoming and inclusive country.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with local authorities regarding solutions to the housing emergency. (S6O-04887) The Cabinet Secretary for Housing (Màiri McAllan): Since declaring the housing emergency, we have taken an activist and interventionist approach and have worked extensively with local authorities, particularly those that are experiencing the most acute housing pressures. Over the summer, I met extensively with partners across the housing sector, including local authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, in order to understand their challenges and hear their proposed solutions. Much of that fed into the housing emergency action plan, which I presented to the Parliament this week.”
“The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee highlighted that there would be no scrutiny role for this Parliament and no need for Scottish ministers to consent to the making of regulations that fall outwith statutory instrument protocol 2. We believe that that issue should be properly addressed. Given our concerns about the situation and specifically about the lack of scrutiny, Conservative members will not oppose the LCM, but we cannot support it. 15:40”
“Part of the reason why they might be relaxed is that it is all just rhetoric and they are not in dynamic alignment with the European Union at all. Murdo Fraser: That might well be the case. I am sure that that is a debate that we could have at another time. I will simply reflect that the Scottish National Party Government seeming to be more willing than the Scottish Conservatives to pass powers to UK ministers is a rather odd position to be in. We are concerned about the level of ministerial discretion that has been granted in the bill and about the role of this Parliament in providing adequate scrutiny.”
“The result is that illegal immigration has surged and the number of small boat crossings in the past 11 months alone has hit record highs. That is not coincidence—that is consequence. Let us be clear that the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill repeals key sections of the Illegal Migration Act 2023—the very provisions that created a pathway to deter illegal crossings and dismantle the vile business model of people- smuggling gangs. The Rwanda partnership was about not just removing illegal entrants but sending the clear and unambiguous message that, if people come here illegally, they will not be allowed to stay. Labour has turned its back on that principle.”
“Before us today is a legislative consent motion for a bill that epitomises a weak response from a weak Government. Is there a policy area that Keir Starmer has not reversed on? Right before our eyes, as we hold the debate, we can see what is happening with his welfare reform proposals. Labour’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill is a master-class in vacuous legislation—it is long on rhetoric and short on resolve. If the members on these Conservative benches were in the House of Commons, we would oppose the bill, just as our colleagues at Westminster are rightly doing. Instead of building on the robust deterrent measures that the previous Conservative Government put in place—most notably the Rwanda policy that was championed by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak—Labour has taken a wrecking ball to them.”
“It must be dynamic and recognise the change, which is why I set out the measures that I referred to in my statement. Having undertaken a review of the national specification, some work needs to be done to drive things forward, so that the standards that are set out in the specification are realised consistently on the ground across Scotland and, most importantly, are felt in the lived experience of those who use the services. I take the point about the importance of data informing national policy. Of course, the situation with CAMHS is different, so we need to clarify what the CAMHS waiting times show. I hope that that answer has been of some use to Stephen Kerr. Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill”
“With all respect to the new minister, I cannot see how he can be crystal clear about anything when, in his statement, he conceded that there is no national data. How can the Government make policy when no national data is published? There will be another task force, but what will be its measurable outcomes and when will it report? Tom Arthur: I accept Stephen Kerr’s point about the need for data, which is why I have referred specifically to our on-going work in engaging with local authorities and health boards on neurodevelopmental assessment. We do not have the data because the statutory responsibility for delivering those services lies with local partners. I noted that we have seen a significant increase in demand, which the system needs to respond to.”
“Graeme Dey: I am very much alive to the competing arguments for funding in the post-16 education space. I regularly hear asks for an increase in the payment rates, but I also hear asks for increases in all sorts of other spend in that area. Through the reform work, we are trying to look very closely at the needs of the economy and to prioritise those sectors. As part of that work, we will, in due course, look at the payment rates, but I cannot stand here today and say that we will suddenly magic up a pot of money to address the issue, although I take the point on board.”
“On the same theme, yesterday, Alan Wilson of Scotland’s electrical trade body, SELECT, warned that “Scotland absolutely must not be left behind when it comes to apprenticeship funding.” That is how he feels. He highlighted the emergence of a two-tier system. Funding for electrical apprentices in England stands at £23,000, and in Scotland it is £8,000. It is three times more in England. He is right to say that we need electricians here and now, that we will need electricians in the future, and that a two-tier system is totally unacceptable. With a 30 per cent real-terms cut over seven years—by his calculation—and no increase in funding in that time, does the minister accept that those warnings are real, and will he now act to close that unacceptable gap?”
“I believe that many of the amendments—including some that Mr Kerr worked on—will help to create a new and different type of organisation that works with the teaching profession in a different way.”
“I agree with the cabinet secretary that the bill creates an independent chief inspector of education, but how would she describe the change from the Scottish Qualifications Authority to qualifications Scotland? In truth, is it not the case that the only thing that is really changing is the name? Jenny Gilruth: I do not accept that critique from Mr Kerr. Indeed, we have spent two days of parliamentary time debating lengthy amendments that have sought to change the type of organisation that we want to have. One of the points that Mr Kerr rightly made at stage 2 and via amendments at stage 3 was about cultural change. That has to happen as a result of the legislation.”
“I understand that the Minister for Parliamentary Business is having kittens about how long I take to deliver my speeches, but I point out to the Parliament that, since most of the members in the chamber—”
“To ask the Scottish Government for what reason medical supplies were sent to Ukraine with a condition that they be used for civilian purposes only. (S6O-04836)”
“There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system. 14:09 Meeting suspended. 14:16 On resuming— The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the division on motion S6M-18133, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on suspension of standing orders. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed.”
“The reason for that was precisely what I have just laid out—there had to be a process of engagement to clarify certain areas so that the Government was satisfied in saying to the Parliament that we think that legislative consent should be granted. Should we not have complied with that responsibility? Should we just have breenged in, having not even looked at the matter, and brought it to Parliament without considering it? I do not think that Opposition members would expect us to do that. I urge Parliament to vote for the motion. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that motion S6M-18133, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on suspension of standing orders, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“How embarrassing. Jamie Hepburn: I hear that Mr Kerr thinks that that is embarrassing. He is a great proponent of the Parliament having responsibility for considering such matters, but he wants to deny Parliament the opportunity to consider the matter today. I will speak to the timescale to which we have had to operate. This is about a private member’s bill at Westminster. As such, this Parliament’s standing orders make it clear that a legislative consent memorandum can be lodged only when a bill has completed the first amending stage, which was the committee stage in the House of Commons on 14 May. The Scottish Government sought to lodge the memorandum as quickly as possible, and it did so on 3 June.”
“In doing so, they would align us not just with best practice internationally but with what teachers, learners and employers in Scotland expect and deserve. The choice is simple. We can pass a bill that recycles the same flawed structures with new titles or we can pass a bill that learns from the past and restores public trust in Scottish qualifications. I urge colleagues across the chamber to think about the issues rather than just voting in the way that their whip has told them to vote. Let us choose real reform and make a difference. Let us support the amendments. Let us send the clear message that qualifications in Scotland must not only be rigorous but be seen to be rigorously and independently accredited. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Douglas Ross to speak to amendment 193 and other amendments in the group.”
“Professor Muir was right when he warned that the reform of Education Scotland and the SQA was only a starter and that structural change must be accompanied by real shifts in transparency, engagement and accountability. Those are his words. The OECD said much the same in its report on the curriculum for excellence. At the time, the Scottish National Party Government set great store by the OECD report. The OECD noted that Scotland’s education system suffers from overlapping functions and insufficient separation between design, delivery and oversight, creating what it called a confusion over roles and a risk of conformity of thought. That is very insightful. Amendments 276 and 277 would answer that criticism with action. They would not tinker—they would make a clean break and create a coherent, independent regulatory structure.”
“Douglas Ross has proposed the creation of a chief regulator of examinations. I am sure that he will speak to his proposals, but they deserve the careful examination and consideration of Parliament. They would introduce a principle of external adjudication, giving learners, parents and teachers a place to turn when confidence in the fairness of an exam process is in doubt. I support that aim. That is a confidence-building measure. It complements, rather than duplicates, the structural independence that I seek through my amendments. The real issue is not bureaucratic configuration, but the culture of the SQA, which has repeatedly been described by those who have dealt with it as arrogant, entitled and self-justifying. It is a direct result of a structure that allowed it to answer only to itself, and that surely must end.”
“If we are to have an awarding body that earns public confidence, it must be free from ministerial interference in its corporate direction. Turning to other amendments in the group, I note that everything that Willie Rennie ever touches is eminently reasonable. It is eminently reasonable that he should propose an expert group on qualifications standards, but it is a halfway house and it might take us absolutely nowhere. I will not rehash all the things that I have said about the nature of Willie Rennie’s amendments, but he knows that I am disappointed that we have ended up where we have. People who work, live and breathe the education system in Scotland deserve better than something that might or might not end up as an important structural reform of the education landscape.”
“Public interest demands independent scrutiny, not internal review. International comparisons bear that out. In England, Ofqual regulates qualifications separately from delivery bodies. In Wales, Qualifications Wales operates as a stand-alone public body. It is only in Northern Ireland, where awarding and accreditation remain under one roof, that there is continuing dissatisfaction with the arrangements among school leaders. That was well covered in Professor Muir’s report, and we should learn from that and act accordingly. I will speak briefly to amendment 147, which would remove section 14(3), which gives the Scottish ministers power to direct revisions to the corporate plan of qualifications Scotland. That power cuts across the very independence that we are trying to build around those institutions.”
“They would transfer the accreditation function from qualifications Scotland to the chief inspector of education. I willingly concede Willie Rennie’s point that that is not a perfect solution, but it moves towards something better. That is what Parliament should be seeking. It would establish a clear structural separation between those who create the qualifications and those who assure their quality. 16:15 That separation is essential, and it is not an administrative nicety. It is a safeguard for standards and a precondition for trust. The experience of the 2024 higher history exam, which was investigated by the SQA itself, is a textbook example of why such separation is indispensable. If learners and teachers are to believe in the fairness and rigour of the system, no body can be seen to investigate itself.”
“To be direct, the bill as it stands fails to draw a clean and necessary line between the awarding and accreditation of qualifications. That is a structural flaw and would invite the same mistakes and public distrust that have dogged the SQA for 40 years. That is why I am speaking in favour of amendments 147, 276 and 277 in my name, which go to the root of the problem. I argued at stage 2, and repeat today, that Parliament cannot afford to pass legislation that permits the new body, qualifications Scotland, to both design and deliver qualifications and then also to accredit them. That is not a regulatory framework. To borrow Professor Ken Muir’s precise words, that would allow qualifications Scotland to “mark its own homework”. Amendments 276 and 277 seek to correct that.”
“In thinking about everything that lies ahead of us in the hours to come, I was inclined to offer some sense of regret that there are so many amendments and that I am the author of many of them—although Willie Rennie rightly claims the credit for some of them—but I cannot apologise for using Parliament time to consider what it would take for us jointly to pursue better educational outcomes for Scotland’s young people by reforming our education system. If we cannot insist on integrity, scrutiny and quality, we are missing the point of why we sit in Parliament at all. In considering the amendments in group 2, I now properly turn to the very heart of the bill’s credibility, which is the integrity of qualifications in Scotland and of the institutional architecture that underpins public trust in those qualifications.”
“I thought that there would be meaningful negotiation and a shared effort to shape amendments into something workable and supportable, but that promise has not been realised in the way that many of us had hoped. I hope that members will respect my point of view, because I genuinely do not think that this is a satisfactory way for Parliament to make legislation in an area as important as education. It is a moment of profound importance when Parliament passes legislation on education.”
“I well remember exchanges with other committee members about the necessity of seeking perfection when, in fact, we should really be aiming to make improvements because perfection is probably beyond us in every aspect of legislation in this, or any other, parliamentary session. There was a sense that there would be some inadequacy with any of the options that we were considering, which is why I am grateful that we at least have the benefit of now being able to consider those options again at stage 3. I will make an important point about the essence of my genuine regret. I believed what Willie Rennie said earlier and did actually believe that the cabinet secretary was open to changing her position and that the Government would be open to refining and supporting a new set of proposals that we could all coalesce around.”
“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? Stephen Kerr: I thought that we had all agreed during the stage 2 committee proceedings that any solutions that did not include the creation of a new public body would be inexact and would not be perfect. We had a long discussion.”
“When I tried to reintroduce amendments at stage 3, I discovered that Pam Duncan-Glancy, another admirer of Willie Rennie’s beautiful amendments, had beaten me to it. It is important but of great regret that we have reached this point and are discussing the issues in such a context. I genuinely thought that lots of discussions would be had across the Parliament between the end of stage 2 and the beginning of stage 3. There was space and scope for us to come to some understanding about how to proceed together. 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 that were originally mine.”
“It will take a long time, and members will get very impatient with those of us who wish to discuss and debate the amendments, but, frankly, if we cannot take the time to consider perhaps the most important devolved responsibility that rests with the Parliament, I do not know what we are here for. To be fair, there has been some cross-party engagement throughout the process, but I had hoped and expected that, by now, we might have moved beyond the point of so many members feeling that it is necessary to bring back, rework or refine stage 2 amendments. Willie Rennie said that I want the Parliament to have the advantage of examining the beauty of his stage 2 amendments, and, indeed, I do. In fact, Willie Rennie knows that I was a very enthusiastic endorser of the amendments that he lodged in the area of accreditation.”
“I am not a member of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, but that was very clear to me when I was at the committee, listening carefully, because it is an issue that ought to intensely interest us all in the Parliament. The education system is vital to the wellbeing of the people of this country. It was clear that there was a strong sense that something would have to give and that we would have to get together and not move or press any amendments at stage 2 but go away and have lots of huddles and discussion. I preface anything that I will say in the process of considering the stage 3 amendments by saying that I approach all this with a genuine sense of regret. We find ourselves here at stage 3 of a bill on a very important subject—it is the only education bill of this parliamentary session—with more than 300 amendments.”
“He will recall that, at stages 1 and 2, there was no unity on the Education, Children and Young People Committee about where accreditation should be moved or on the wider issue, which he and I debated at length, about the bill’s scope and which qualifications should be covered by accreditation. Does he accept that there was no unity on those points and that, in a Parliament of minorities, it was incumbent on all parties to work with the Government to obtain a route forward that we could all come behind and support? Stephen Kerr: I thought that there had been unity of purpose on the fact that we would abide by the expert opinion that the Government itself had commissioned, particularly the Muir report, that those functions should be separated.”
“The Scottish education system must be the most reviewed thing in the country. How many more reviews must there be? All that amendment 176 says is that, at the end of the review, the Government must state whether it intends to do anything about it. It is a long way from where we were at stage 2, when the cabinet secretary, because of the unity among committee members who represent different parties, conceded that something would need to be done much sooner than over a very long timetable, which is the view that Willie Rennie takes. Jenny Gilruth: Stephen Kerr has talked about unity.”
“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. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Stephen Kerr to speak to amendment 147 and other amendments in the group. Stephen Kerr: Willie Rennie, for whom I have a lot of respect, has settled for something that is really poor.”
“Does the member agree that we can do both and properly abolish the SQA at the same time? 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.”
“Pam Duncan-Glancy: There are two important points about the higher history situation. First, as it stands—the member has alluded to this—the SQA determines the quality of its own qualifications, which is not a satisfactory circumstance. Secondly, although the accreditation function does not necessarily cover school-based qualifications just now, it could cover those in future. It could also cover other subjects that might be taken in school. We are looking at opportunities to broaden the curriculum, so we need to move the function now so that we can future proof for generations to come. Only doing that through a review without moving the function would be a problem. One of our amendments in a later group, which is on the role of the regulator, says that we should also look at the scope of accreditation and quality assurance.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. Martin Whitfield: The member said that amendment 156 originated from the higher history debacle. Can he explain why he chose periods of financial years rather than academic years, which would shorten—or indeed lengthen—the period for anything that needs to be changed before the next round of examinations? 16:00 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.”
“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.”