Pam Duncan-Glancy
Independent · Scotland
“I know that because I have been all the people I have described. They live in fear every single day, worrying about what new limit someone else will put on their life and what little power they will have to change it. They live every single day without choice at all.”
“It is the lack of support, and the lack of options, that makes me feel like I cannot go on. Disabled people do not have real choices in life. There will be countless disabled people in our constituencies tonight who have not had the choice to have a shower in weeks.”
“During the pandemic, my husband and I were so scared of other people’s power over our lives— lives that we could see others devaluing daily— that we wrote letters to each other making it clear that we wanted to be resuscitated.”
“From fighting to go to the same nursery as my sister to delaying university for two years because I could not get a care package, and from fighting to be allowed to travel on the same bus as my husband to fighting to get a bathroom adapted so that I could have a shower, absolutely everything that I have has been a fight.”
“The bill will not only put sick and disabled people at a risk that cannot be mitigated in one bill or by one policy, including the risk from coercion, but will serve to reinforce the internalised ableism that we live with every day of our lives, and legitimise the view that a life such as ours—a life of dependence and, often, pain—is not…”
“I, too, thank Liam McArthur for the way in which he has engaged on the bill and with me. Last week, we considered the specifics of what the bill would mean in real life. For 25 hours, we heard personal reflections and experiences as well as some of the difficulties in the detail.”
The complete record
Every one of 665 lines we hold for Pam Duncan-Glancy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 14.
“For Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) 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) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) 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) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) 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) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) 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) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) 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) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor] Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 22, Against 85, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 19 disagreed to. After section 47G Amendment 340 not moved. Amendment 341 moved—[Pam Duncan- Glancy]. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 341 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. For Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) 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) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) 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) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) 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) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) 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) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) 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) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor] Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 20, Against 88, Abstentions 0.”
“I look forward to the work that the Government plans to do on bringing forward the code of conduct. I seek permission to withdraw amendment 339. Amendment 339, by agreement, withdrawn. The Presiding Officer: Members will note that we will shortly reach the next time limit and that we still have a further group to debate. As a consequence, under rule 9.8.5A of standing orders, I am minded to accept a motion without notice to propose that the time limit be extended by 30 minutes. I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans to move such a motion. Motion moved, That, under Rule 9.8.5A the eighth time-limit be moved by up to 30 minutes.—[Graeme Dey] Motion agreed to. After section 47E Amendment 19 moved—[Maggie Chapman]. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.”
“I look forward to seeing the detail of the code come before the Parliament. I also welcome amendment 243, in the name of the cabinet secretary, which clarifies that a simple majority can be used to remove a factor that is not performing. I imagine that all of us have had concerns and complaints in our inboxes about the performance of factors. Many residents say that, often, when they complain to the factor itself, the factor knows that it is so difficult to remove it from its position that it can essentially dismiss any complaint out of hand. We need to move away from a system in which the minority of factors that do not do the job that they are supposed to do, and dismiss such complaints, can carry on doing so. I take on board the points that the cabinet secretary has made about the technical aspects of my amendment 339.”
“Somebody from a new-build housing estate told me that it should be updated to say that nothing is certain in life apart from death, taxes and factor fees, given the frustration that a lot of people have with that quarterly bill over which they genuinely feel they have no control. It is the one area of their life in which they do not have a choice. They have no choice as to who supplies their factoring service, nor when it comes to a complaint about the quality of that service or the ability to remove that service provider. There is a real frustration among home owners about the system of factoring as it operates at the moment. I am encouraged to hear from the cabinet secretary that the Government will consult on and introduce a code of conduct. For home owners who are currently frustrated, it is critical that that work is done at pace.”
“However, it is encouraging that there will be an updated code of conduct—that she is going to conduct a review— so I can happily support amendment 243. That said, the issues that have been raised by other members are equally serious and should be considered seriously. Making it easier to change a property factor is very important, so the action that has been called for should be taken. Unfortunately—and it is a rare event for me—I am not persuaded by Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 341. I apologise for that, but I can probably support most of the other amendments in the group. The Presiding Officer: I call Mark Griffin to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 339. Mark Griffin: A well-known phrase is that nothing is certain in life apart from death and taxes.”
“For those reasons, I ask members to support my amendment 243 and to either not press or not support the other amendments in the group. Graham Simpson: This group of amendments is important. It deals with issues that most members will have come across, I imagine: difficulties with changing property factors and removing substandard property factors, albeit that those are a very small minority of the sector. I am pleased to have heard from the cabinet secretary that she wants to update the code of conduct. My question is, how enforceable is that? She can intervene to tell me. What powers would there be under that code of conduct to get important matters changed? I see that she does not seek to intervene, so I will just have to guess on that front.”
“However, the code of conduct for property factors already requires disclosure, and the tribunal already has powers to enforce compliance, so I cannot support those amendments. Amendment 346 seeks to allow owners associations to bring complaints to the tribunal. Ms Boyack has put that proposal to the Government on a number of occasions and we have looked into it. Although I appreciate the intent, the tribunal already routinely groups related applications under existing regulations. That is standard practice. I have some notes on how often that has been done. In 2022, nearly two thirds of the 254 applications were grouped. Ultimately, I think that, if Ms Boyack was here, she would note that that is already routinely done.”
“Maggie Chapman’s amendment 19 and her consequential amendment 48 seek to introduce a new process by which home owners may refer the property factor’s fitness for registration to the Scottish ministers. However, it is not the ministers’ role to determine who may operate as a property factor. Whether a manager is authorised to act is ultimately a matter for home owners. I note again that my amendment 243 seeks to further empower home owners. Ms Boyack’s amendments 344 and 345 would require property factors to provide home owners and the First-tier Tribunal with certain documents, including documents relating to the interests, rights and obligations of home owners, and would make failure to do so a criminal offence.”
“It would therefore have a more limited application than what I propose, and it is probably less clear how it would apply in practice. I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy to support what the Government is proposing in relation to positions on voting. Mark Griffin’s amendment 342 would require property factors to seek formal home owner approval for works costing £10,000 that were not specified in the title deeds, and it includes some other details. Again, those things would be more appropriately addressed through the code of conduct for property factors, which can be updated when need be. That is the benefit of having things in the code rather than in primary legislation.”
“Mark Griffin’s amendment 340 would require a property factor to arrange and attend two resident forum meetings per year, with notice being given by recorded delivery, hybrid access and so on. I do not think that such detail is suited to the rigidity of primary legislation. It would be more appropriately addressed in the code of conduct for property factors, which I have committed to Parliament will be updated in a timely manner. As I noted, my amendment 243 will allow a simple majority of home owners to remove a manager of related properties. Ms Duncan- Glancy’s amendment 341 seeks to achieve a similar outcome. The changes would apply if a decision was taken at a residents forum meeting, but only in relation to home owners who had a deed of conditions or contract with the property factor.”
“I was pleased to lodge amendment 243. Similar provisions were previously proposed by Ariane Burgess and Maggie Chapman. The amendment will make it easier for owners of related properties to dismiss a property manager and appoint someone else, which a number of members have said is important. The changes that I propose will mean that a simple majority of the owners, as opposed to two thirds, will be able to remove the manager, regardless of whether the title deeds provide for a higher voting threshold. I am grateful to Ariane Burgess and Maggie Chapman for their suggestions. Maggie Chapman’s amendment 20 and her consequential amendment 49 ultimately seek to address the same matter but without the correct framing, which I have sought to provide in my amendment.”
“I appreciate the intent behind the amendments, but I invite him not to press them, as the proposed changes would be better considered as part of the review. They could be implemented if, after consultation, they are considered helpful. 17:15 Amendment 339, which is also in Mr Griffin’s name, seeks to insert a purpose clause into the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011. The amendment is absolutely well intentioned, but the clause is not essential—nor, arguably, would it be helpful. The purpose of the 2011 act is already clear from the provisions and the explanatory notes, and its legal framework is based on the relationship between property factors and home owners. Tenants do not have a contractual relationship with a property factor, so I fear that including them in a purpose clause could cause confusion.”
“Any updated code would, of course, be laid before Parliament, so members can be assured that they would be able to explore what is proposed for the system. Pam Duncan-Glancy: Can the cabinet secretary set out when that work on the code will be done? Màiri McAllan: A number of pieces of work will flow from the bill. I will have to take forward regulations in respect of Awaab’s law and in respect of the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021. I will not put a timescale on that action in particular, but I undertake to update Ms Duncan-Glancy and other members as soon as I have a timetable for that, because I understand how important the issue is for members and for their constituents who have raised concerns. I turn to Mr Griffin’s amendments 343 and 347.”
“At stage 2, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice committed to a review of that regime and I intend to honour that with greater urgency than has been brought to the situation that Pam Duncan-Glancy spoke of. That review will seek input from stakeholders across the system, including homeowners and factors, and will consider compliance with the code of conduct, how well its requirements are understood and the work that we must do to assess whether a person is fit and proper. It should be possible to address most of the issues raised by the amendments in this group by preparing an updated code of conduct for property factors, which will set out minimum standards of practice for registered property factors.”
“However, in the years since, that update has still not been carried out and it is now clear that there is a case for legislation to address the issue. The residents have no mechanism by which to hold their factor to account and question whether the factor is acting in accordance with the law or with the voluntary code of conduct. The amendments in this group would all serve to resolve such situations. On that basis, I support all the amendments in the group and I intend to move amendment 341. The Presiding Officer: I call the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 243 and other amendments in the group. Màiri McAllan: We recognise that home owners face difficulties in the property factoring system.”
“We all know from our casework that there are serious issues with the dismissal of property factors and that that complexity has been recognised through previous action. The amendments in this group in the names of Mark Griffin and others are essential to addressing some of those concerns. The amendments in Mark Griffin’s name, on grounds maintenance, would address the concerns of constituents at Newton Farm in Cambuslang, who have said that they are having direct experience of a complex situation that was raised with the Parliament’s Justice Committee as far back as 2013. The Government concluded that legislation was not needed to improve their circumstances and said that it would simply update the voluntary code of conduct.”
“The alternative is that home owners find themselves at a complete impasse because they cannot mobilise enough members to do anything at all about a factor that they consider not to be meeting the standards that they would expect. Amendment 341 would enable decisions to be taken far more conveniently and, in some cases, more quickly, empowering residents to move things on and to act in the interests of a building and of those who live there. Residents and home owners associations are well-known mechanisms allowing residents to come together. Those associations often have the backing of many, if not most, residents in a building, but attendance and membership are not always as they should be. My amendment would address part of that problem and would allow things to progress where they might come unstuck.”
“Graham Simpson: Pam Duncan-Glancy has launched a really interesting amendment, but, unless the title deeds state otherwise, it could allow a situation in which very few people—for example, six out of 200—actually turn up to a residents meeting but, according to her amendment, a majority, which in this case would be four, could vote to change the factor. I am sure that Pam Duncan-Glancy does not want that sort of situation, so does she accept that that would be a bit ludicrous? Pam Duncan-Glancy: I think some of the figures that Mr Simpson uses are probably quite extreme, but I understand the point he is trying to make.”
“Amendment 341 provides that, “Unless otherwise stated in the title deeds, a change of property factor may be approved by a majority ... of home owners present at a residents’ forum meeting.” It would mean that any decision to change a property factor would be considered binding on all home owners. Under section 28 of the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003, a factor can be dismissed if more than half the owners agree. The difficulty with that is that some owners may be less engaged than others or unresponsive when residents reach out to discuss concerns regarding their existing property factor. Amendment 341 would address that and take a more collective approach, empowering residents to resolve concerns about factors.”
“The EIS is keen to provide support to its members, but it is also keen to tell me about the impact that recent decisions have had in relation to schools in particular. I have been clear that we had to update the guidance in line with the Supreme Court ruling. We have undertaken that work over a number of months to ensure that we are compliant with the ruling, and the updated guidance was published yesterday to that end.”
“The Scottish Government’s guidance for school estates says: “Discrimination requirements under the Equality Act and inclusion measures should be dealt with under suitability.” Will the cabinet secretary reassure members that the new guidance will give schools a clear understanding of their duty to support the rights of all pupils to safely access toilet facilities when conducting future suitability surveys? Jenny Gilruth: The national guidance goes some way towards providing for that. We have had clear engagement with COSLA on the issue, and with the trade unions, which have been very helpful. I listened to some of the really helpful contributions from Andrea Bradley on BBC Radio Scotland this morning. The Educational Institute of Scotland has been very outspoken in its views on the issue, and I welcome its contributions in that regard.”
“The Gen+ programme was one such programme that benefited, and there are others, as well. The challenge to recruit computing science teachers continues. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills is very much committed to that, and it is an area of collaboration across”
“The fact that our scale-ups have access to that is probably underappreciated in Scotland. We also have other programmes, including Techscaler discovery, which is a free online programme to support individuals at the earliest stages of their journey, and there is a catalyst accelerator, which is a 10- week hybrid programme. In many cases, those programmes are delivered by experienced founders and industry experts. On embedding this in our schools, I was delighted to confirm last year that, for the first time ever, we now have entrepreneurial education provided through the whole school experience, from primary 1 to secondary 6, because of the way in which we have provided funding to key organisations. It means that young people, at different stages of their school experience, have access to entrepreneurial learning.”
“Will the Deputy First Minister outline a comprehensive plan to ensure that young people can access technical skills in schools nationwide? How many additional computing science teachers will be deployed as a result? Kate Forbes: I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for her question, too. I enormously value the cross- party support that has always existed for the implementation of the Scottish technology ecosystem review—STER—which is Mark Logan’s review, and I am grateful to hear that confirmed again. On the centrality of education, Pam Duncan- Glancy is absolutely right to say that a number of education programmes are offered through Techscaler, tailored to different stages of the founder journey. I mentioned membership of Reforge, which is a premium education programme that is globally respected.”
“I thank the Deputy First Minister for advance sight of her statement. I agree that Techscaler is proving to be a significant driver of Scotland’s tech ecosystem, and we hope that the concerns that have been raised will be considered by the DFM’s early independent review, so that Techscaler can maximise its positive impact on Scottish businesses. Techscaler was central to Mark Logan’s recommendations, but so, too, was the skills pipeline. Indeed, he was right to say that we need to “go long on education”. However, in that area, progress has been more limited. Inspiring young people into technology careers, including in AI and robotics, is crucial to addressing skills gaps, yet, last year, computing science teacher numbers were at an all-time low, with computing science deserts across Scotland.”
“Ben Macpherson: However, the big question for all parties that we have to think about is where the money would come from in order to go somewhere else, and that is a factual consideration.”
“It is important to reflect on the fact that, under this Government, thousands of people go through our further and higher education institutions very successfully every year. The member makes a point about funding for the college sector. As I stated in previous answers, this Government has dedicated billions of pounds annually to supporting the sector and does so in an environment in which it operates within a restricted financial envelope. As I have stated since taking up the post, I am keen to work constructively with members. If, as we go into the Scottish budget, the Labour Party wants to come to me and colleagues with suggestions for that budget, we would be happy to receive them. The big question— The Presiding Officer: Thank you, minister.”
“I am afraid that the minister, quite predictably, points the finger at someone else. Given the £5.2 billion extra that the Scottish Government got from the UK Labour Government, colleges will rightly ask, how come there has been a 17 per cent real-terms cut to funding since 2021, how come staff numbers are down by 27 per cent since 2007 and how come student participation and completion rates are falling? Where has that money gone? Ben Macpherson: The Scottish Government has supported over 163,000 students through the sector. Record numbers of individuals come from care-experienced backgrounds or are receiving support through the disabled students allowance. We have also provided support for individuals who come from more deprived backgrounds. Widening access has been a great success.”
“All that led the Education, Children and Young People Committee to the conclusion that it could not recommend the bill. We need change now—urgent, practical, front- line change. The Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill does not do that. It risks pooling resource and focusing on machinery, not delivery. Scottish Labour cannot offer our support for something that will not deliver front-line, tangible change now, especially when what is at stake is whether we will widen opportunity, close skills gaps and grow Scotland’s economy. Those aims are too important to divert time, energy and action from. 15:29”
“Apprenticeships could be a faster route to solving our skills gaps and universities are ready to innovate with them. All that would help now, and we could do it all now without a lengthy and costly rejig of quangos. We could be using this time to get people into jobs, which would give employers access to the skills that they need and give colleges and universities the money that could save them. Colleagues, I do not doubt the intent behind consolidation, but Parliament has heard evidence that raises concerns about cost, capacity and risk during the transition. Unison said that the proposals are “fraught with risk”, and Unite the Union and the Public and Commercial Services Union said that they were not consulted properly.”
“The bill will not make it so. Learners of all ages need flexible routes that value technical and vocational learning as much as academic pathways. That means having taster apprenticeships, to improve matching and to reduce dropout rates; teaching Scottish industry standards in the senior phase, so that pupils can see how subject choices connect to real jobs; and offering a digital skills passport, so that employers and other people can recognise skills consistently. Thirdly, our skills system must deliver opportunity. To do that, we must expand, widen access to and speed up approvals for new apprenticeship frameworks. That will include empowering the speedy development of more apprenticeships, including at graduate level. Students want to earn and learn.”
“First, it should be industry led, delivered in partnership with education providers, and employers must have a genuine voice in its design and provision so that our education system matches people with the jobs of today and tomorrow. Yet, as has been mentioned, the Scottish apprenticeship advisory board, whose work has been a well-respected way of doing that, may or may not be wound down—we have no clarity on that. We also have no clarity on what its replacement could be, or a coherent plan to address key public sector skills gaps, such as those in the national health service or in education. Many of those sectors rely on colleges and universities being supported to deliver the skills that are needed in those sectors. We have to reform the system now. Secondly, the system must be individually focused, flexible and dynamic.”
“Does the Labour Party think that there needs to be structural change in this area, or does it believe that we do not need to legislate on it? I would be grateful for clarity on that. Pam Duncan-Glancy: We are, of course, always happy to work with members across the chamber during the progress of any bill and to improve any piece of legislation. We will not support this bill at stage 1, as I will come to describe. However, if the bill passes, of course we will be prepared to work with others to look at ways to make it as good as it can possibly be, as we always will try to do. Our approach to skills education starts with three simple principles.”
“However, we cannot support a lengthy, costly rejig of quangos over delivery of opportunity now. The Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill is an organisational restructure that is pulling resource to the centre at a time when we should be using every pound and every ounce of focus for delivery on the ground in the regions of Scotland. Ben Macpherson: [Made a request to intervene.] Pam Duncan-Glancy: Presiding Officer, do I have time to take an intervention? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you a bit of time back. Ben Macpherson: It would be helpful for me at this juncture to understand whether the parties that are opposing the bill today have a determination to work with the proposed legislation.”
“Those in the sector are telling us plainly that the system is strained and that change is needed. The bill before us does not meet the moment. It moves responsibilities between public bodies without a convincing plan to expand capacity. There is no plan for school or employer pathways to be improved. It delivers no additional training places and it will not help to deal with today’s pressures in classrooms, workshops and labs. If we get this wrong, projects slow, costs rise and opportunity narrows. If we get it right, we can unlock growth, wages and living standards across Scotland. That is the choice that is in front of us today. I will set out where Scottish Labour stands on it. We support the ambition to make the system more responsive. We share the goal of a coherent, demand-led approach that puts learners and employers first.”
“That money could be better spent on the front line, and on delivering opportunity for all, now. More than half of Scottish businesses report skills shortages. Only one in six employers in Scotland take on apprentices and many say that the apprenticeships do not feel relevant in their sector or that they are not available for their industry. Apprenticeship completion rates are not what they need to be, disabled people are not accessing them equally and the gender imbalance persists. Meanwhile, the pipeline into degree-level work and integrated learning is far too small; there were just over 1,000 graduate apprenticeships in Scotland in 2021-22, compared with more than 43,000 degree-level apprenticeships elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Scotland can and must do better. It is clear that the status quo is not working.”
“Does the member agree—I also say this in response to Miles Briggs—that the current situation with funding is very complicated and that we can achieve better outcomes by bringing provision together, creating coherence and collaborating to design things properly, using industry as well as providers? Pam Duncan-Glancy: I welcome the minister’s intervention. Forgive me, but I should have started by welcoming him to his place and congratulating him again on his new role. Of course we would agree that making the system much easier, more flexible and more responsive is crucial. However, as many people who gave evidence to the committee have told us, we do not need lengthy legislation that restructures organisations and comes with a costly price tag of tens of millions of pounds in order to do that.”
“The Government has failed to connect education to careers or to match demand for apprenticeships with supply, and it has presided over huge skills gaps, while tens of thousands of young people are not in education, training or employment. Colleges are closing campuses, universities are shedding staff and courses, and employers cannot see where their apprenticeship levy funds go when it comes to Scotland. That is why it is being called a “burning platform”. Ben Macpherson: As I outlined in my opening remarks, there is a shared understanding that, across the chamber, we need to make improvements throughout the country.”
“We have a proud history of skills in Scotland. Our people are among the most talented in the world, and we punch above our weight when it comes to our contribution to technology, science, healthcare and much more. That is down to the hard work of our people, our colleges, our universities, our training providers and our employers, who work their socks off day in and day out to ensure that we are a nation of innovators, pioneers and leaders. The truth is that they are doing that against the tide, because the Government has given colleges and universities—which are the real engines of skills and the anchors in their communities—a “burning platform”.”
“Does the minister accept that Universities Scotland and others have said that those changes could happen now, and that there is money associated with the bill that could be better used to deliver those improvements, support universities to deliver those graduate apprenticeships and deliver opportunities for the young people who access them? Ben Macpherson: I was pleased to speak with Universities Scotland yesterday, and I was pleased to see the support for the bill that it issued in advance of today’s debate.”
“Natalie Don-Innes: That has been a key consideration for the Government in our deliberations in relation to the financial resolution. I think that I set that out to the member in the committee. We have found similar issues, in that there are pupils and children with additional support needs who are not necessarily getting that experience. Equally, one of the issues with the bill is that we are not sure that the centres and the capacity are necessarily there to deal with the number of children and the range of very complex needs. I assure the member that that is a key consideration as we go into stage 2, because we want to ensure equity for all children in relation to residential outdoor experiences.”
“I thank the minister for advance sight of the statement. I welcome the fact that the Government has decided to lay the financial resolution for this important bill, because outdoor education experiences are crucial for young people, and in particular young people with additional support needs. However, evidence to the committee found that a number of young people with ASN were missing out, which is, of course, unjust and unfair. Will the minister set out what work she has done, in the time that it has taken to make the decision on the financial resolution and come back to the chamber, to establish what is needed to ensure access for pupils with ASN? What can she say to reassure Parliament today that the needs of those pupils will be fully considered as the Government engages and as the bill progresses through Parliament?”
“Detailed guidance is being developed on which process to follow, who to contact and what to expect if a complaint is made, and the guidance will be included in the information that is provided to students. Given the collaborative and well-developed work that is on-going with the sector and with students, I ask Ross Greer not to move those amendments. For those reasons, in respect of this group of amendments as a whole, I urge members to support my amendments 123, 124 and 137 and Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 105 and 116, and to reject the other amendments in the group. I move amendment 123.”
“As I made clear previously, I am open to working with members, representatives of the sector and students to look at long-term solutions on affordability. In particular, I commit to work on that with Ross Greer and Pam Duncan-Glancy, who have raised such matters with me. I will move to the final amendments in the group, before allowing others to come in. Amendment 374 relates to complaints procedures for student tenants. As far as I can see, having looked at the provision, robust processes are already in place. However, I accept, as the review group did, that those processes can be complicated to navigate, particularly given that different processes are in place for private PBSA and university halls of residence.”
“Màiri McAllan: First, it is not necessary to do so. The work is well under way—it is well progressed. A range of experts have been involved in its formulation and the work will progress to its conclusion without statutory underpinning. A secondary reason is that there is a degree of flexibility that comes with guidance and a degree of rigidity that comes with primary legislation. Therefore, as it is not necessary, it would not be right to go down that road. I will just cover some of the concerns that have been raised about affordability. This is a complex issue; affordability is very difficult to define. It will arise very differently for different students across the board. Moreover, rental costs in PBSA include more than just rent.”
“Ross Greer: I am glad that the cabinet secretary mentioned that much of the work on drafting model terms and conditions is already under way. That is why amendment 373 is clear that the on-going work can form the model terms and conditions that the amendment would put a compulsion on ministers to produce. The key thing is that it would give ministers the power, if they so choose at a later date, to put those model terms and conditions—and the model complaints procedure in the subsequent amendment—on a statutory footing. Given that the work is already under way to produce those documents, why would ministers not want to have the power to put them on a statutory footing in the future, given that, as the minister has already acknowledged, only a majority of—not all—PBSA providers are signed up to the Unipol standards as they currently stand?”
“Again, I appreciate the intention behind the amendments—I want to ensure that students have full information on the terms and conditions of their accommodation contracts and details of how to make a complaint—but I cannot support them. In respect of amendment 373, work on terms and conditions to ensure consistency between providers is on-going. Guidance on tenancy agreements that is similar to the guidance that is provided in the private rented sector has been drafted and is currently with all stakeholders for comment by the end of October. Following that, an information pack, including information relating to tenancy agreements and tenants’ rights, will be drafted. Student representatives are involved in that process.”
“Our PBSA recommendations are being progressed by the Scottish Government and review group members. Therefore, given that that work is under way and is well progressed, I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move her amendments but to work with me, officials and review group members to finalise that work, which has been a number of years in the making. I am trying to move as swiftly as I can through the amendments, Presiding Officer—I do not have long to go. 15:00 Amendments 373 and 374 and the consequential amendments 389 and 390, in the name of Ross Greer, would require the Scottish Government to publish model terms and conditions for students and a model complaints procedure.”