Craig Hoy
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“Given the fragility of bus services across Dumfriesshire, will the minister commit the cabinet secretary, who is overseas, to a meeting with me, so that I can reinforce the case for a station at Beattock, which is now increasingly vital?”
“Jenny Gilruth: Perhaps it was a bit too much to expect some positivity about these announcements from Mr Hoy. However, I hope that he recognises that the Government has significantly adapted our position on support for businesses in relation to some of the outputs that I have set out today.”
“If kicking the can down the road was a competitive sport, this Government would win gold every single time. Many Scottish businesses now continue to face some of the highest rates liabilities in the UK, and many have seen eye-watering increases as a result of the most recent revaluation.”
“I extend to Mr Hoy the same invitation that I extended to Mr Greer. If Mr Hoy wants to come forward with some more ambitious proposals ahead of the budget, my door is open— Craig Hoy: I am seeing you tomorrow. Jenny Gilruth: We will be meeting tomorrow—I look forward to that engagement.”
“I thank the minister for her invitation for us all to work together. I will meet the Deputy First Minister next week to that end. If the new, fiscally prudent, small-state Scottish Government can commit to reducing tax and cutting the benefits bill, we will have a fruitful relationship.”
“Let us hope that that sentiment remains as we progress through the months. We need to look more broadly at where Scotland has been and where it is going. Scotland is a country that has made reducing child poverty an absolute priority—that is one of its moonshots. With our 6 per cent lower figure, we are leading the UK.”
The complete record
Every one of 926 lines we hold for Craig Hoy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 19.
“This debate serves to show one thing and one thing only: namely, despite the opportunity for self- reflection and a reset over the summer, the First Minister and his Government have learned no lessons at all. We return to the Parliament today, and the SNP’s first act, sadly and predictably, is to press for independence. Over the summer, I have spoken to residents on doorsteps and in surgeries from Aberlady to Sanquhar. Let me tell the First Minister, who has just left the chamber, that independence was not a priority for a single person to whom I spoke out there in the real world.”
“I move, That the Parliament welcomes the Scottish Government’s continued focus on its four key priorities of eradicating child poverty, tackling the climate emergency, growing the economy, and ensuring high-quality and sustainable public services; recognises that the delivery of these priorities is within the significant constraints of a constitutional settlement that hampers achieving those priorities due to the policy decisions of UK Conservative and Labour administrations, and recognises that it is only by choosing independence that Scotland can get the fresh start that its people need and deserve. 15:25”
“Will the First Minister accept an intervention? The Deputy Presiding Officer: The First Minister is concluding. The First Minister: I need to bring my remarks to a close. We need a Parliament with the power to create an immigration policy that works for the people of Scotland. We move ahead on eradicating child poverty, but then a new Westminster decision pushes us back. We seek to create jobs and boost prosperity, but a clumsy, ill-judged Westminster national insurance tax grab pushes businesses to the brink. The Scottish Government will do everything that we can within our powers to secure the future of the people of Scotland and improve their lives, but make no mistake—this country needs to have the full powers of independence to transform the lives of our people, and this Government is going to work to deliver exactly that.”
“It is about protecting people, public health and local economies. We should not shy away from taking the serious and necessary steps that are needed to keep our communities safe. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I advise members that we are very tight for time. I will have to restrict later speakers to three minutes, as well as extending the debate. 13:18”
“Dumfries and Galloway Council spent its full £84,000 in gull control budgetary measures in 2023-24, investing in nest removal, gull-proof bins and deterrents on buildings, but the initiatives are still not working. That serves to show how serious the issue is and how much NatureScot must listen to local communities, because council budgets are being fully utilised. It would be unfair for NatureScot not to represent the views of our constituents. I do not speak to demonise the herring gull. Gulls, when properly managed, are every bit a part of coastal life as fishermen, beaches and fish and chips, but the problem needs to be addressed. I look forward to hearing from the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity what the Government will do to take forward those concerns, because they are concerns of the communities that we represent.”
“In East Lothian, for example, towns such as Dunbar and North Berwick are facing relentless problems during nesting season. I have heard from residents who feel as though they are under siege and are, rightly, calling for a more robust and practical use of licences to tackle the scourge of gulls. As Mr Ruskell made clear, those problems can be made worse by residents’ behaviour. For example in North Berwick, one resident feeds the seagulls, which causes huge disturbance, noise and inevitable mess for neighbouring properties. Apparently, East Lothian Council is powerless to intervene. As Finlay Carson said, in Dumfriesshire, the issue has been particularly persistent. Anyone who visits Dumfries will see the gull that permanently sits atop the statue of Robbie Burns.”
“The reduction of approximately 75 per cent in the number of licences shows just what a seismic shift its new policy and guidance is having, and that change is leaving many communities with limited options to manage the issue. It has definitely contributed to the increased number of gull-related incidents across Scotland. The licences are essential for local authorities, landowners and businesses that are trying to protect public spaces, retail areas, residential communities and, in many instances, the local economy. The sharp drop in approvals has caused real concern for many of my constituents, and there is now a growing frustration that NatureScot is not fully reflecting the views of those who are directly affected when it assesses applications.”
“Outside one local business, in one month, seven children were attacked and left with gashes to the scalp and blood running down their faces. It is a real problem. Residents and businesses report to me and many parliamentary colleagues the problems that they are facing, from noise to property damage and direct attacks. Children, older people and tourists are particularly terrified when those attacks take place. As many members have referred to, I have heard about people changing their plans, changing dog walking routes or even changing the way that they access their homes because of the effect of gulls, particularly during nesting periods. As ever, my colleague Douglas Ross is right to raise concerns about the recent shift in the approach that is being taken by NatureScot through its licensing regime.”
“As we prepare to take flight, I congratulate Douglas Ross on bringing forward this important debate. As colleagues across the chamber have referenced, the menace of seagulls has been getting steadily worse in communities across Scotland. As a South Scotland MSP, I represent a wide region that includes many coastal areas, from Eyemouth and Dunbar in the east to Stranraer in the west. Many of those coastal towns and villages—and even inland ones—are experiencing serious and growing issues with gulls. The birds can be large, aggressive and very territorial, and they are larger now than in the past because of their ready access to fast food on many streets. There have been multiple gull strike victims in Eyemouth.”
“Will Mr Swinney engage with his officials and Inspiring Scotland to turn the warm words that he spoke during his recent visit into urgently needed financial support?”
“On Monday, for the third time in as many months, I visited The Usual Place in Dumfries. As the First Minister will know from his recent visit, Craig McEwen and his team operate a life-changing hospitality-based project that equips young people with disabilities and additional support needs with the experience, confidence and skills to enter the workplace. However, last weekend, it was confirmed that The Usual Place was unsuccessful in its application to the Scottish Government’s learning disability support fund. Craig McEwen fears that, if no further Scottish Government funding is confirmed soon, The Usual Place might have to shut its doors for good in December. We cannot let that happen.”
“Perhaps he needs to start listening a bit more, rather than talking.”
“Craig Hoy: There were four questions in there, but I have not heard any answers. The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another. Shona Robison: It sounds to me like Craig Hoy wants to defend the Labour Government’s spending review instead of defending Scotland’s public finances and funding. That is a political decision for Craig Hoy to make. [Interruption.] Let me explain—probably for the fourth or fifth time—a point that Craig Hoy seems to have misunderstood. The Scottish Fiscal Commission has produced an illustrative policy-only income tax net position, but that is not supposed to represent what the income tax policy could raise for the Scottish budget—I have told him that time and again. More importantly, Professor Graeme Roy of the Scottish Fiscal Commission has told Craig Hoy that.”
“Shona Robison: Again we hear hyperbole from Craig Hoy rather than anything about the detail of the plans that I have produced today. [Interruption.] Let me take Craig Hoy through a couple of facts. Our funding is determined largely by Westminster, and I set out the impacts that are driving the gap in 2029-30—there are three in particular. One is the cuts to disability benefits, which will impact the Scottish budget by £440 million. The cost of mitigating the UK Government’s two-child cap could be offset if the UK Government decided to do that. There is also the impact of employer national insurance contributions, with a gap of £400 million. Then, of course, we have the very low rate of funding growth, which is 0.8 per cent lower than the average for UK funding departments.”
“There is still no credible plan to generate the growth that is needed to pay for it all. How can we trust the SNP to deliver additional tax receipts of £2.3 billion by 2029-30 when its existing plans bring in only a quarter of that? How do ministers intend to pay for Scotland’s health outcomes? Yesterday’s data revealed that things are still getting worse. How does the Government intend to address alarming and rising levels of economic inactivity, which can no longer be ignored, and how will ministers pay for the year- on-year surge in welfare spending, which is £2 billion, as a result of SNP policy? Is it not the case that the delayed SNP document is too little too late to rescue the Scottish economy or our fragile public finances?”
“The previous medium-term financial strategy was published just over two years ago. Last year’s was binned, and this year’s was delayed. With the Government slipping out this year’s strategy just before the summer recess, we have no time to properly scrutinise the plan. What we do know is that, without radical action on public sector reform, health and labour force trends, Scots face substantially higher taxes or a state that does less. The projected £5 billion fiscal gap by the end of the decade is not Westminster’s fault or responsibility; it is the Scottish National Party’s. Today’s 0.5 per cent workforce reduction plan lacks ambition and detail. The tax strategy is wrong, and it is bringing in just £616 million this year, which is £1 billion less as a result of the SNP’s economic performance gap.”
“They would send the message to every parent, teacher and learner in Scotland that their school matters and will not be forgotten. I urge colleagues from across the chamber to support these essential reforms. I move amendment 19.”
“If a school believes that it would benefit from an external review, that request should not be dismissed. Rightly, amendment 241 would require the chief inspector to respond with either a commitment to inspect or a written justification for declining. The amendments that I have spoken to do not demand perfection; they demand professionalism. They would not impose micromanagement; they would impose accountability, as they should. Without regular inspections, we cannot claim to know what is happening in our schools. Without a reporting duty, we cannot claim to be transparent. Without statutory requirements, we cannot claim to be serious. As amendments 19 and 22 set a clear, reasonable and achievable standard, they would answer the call of Audit Scotland, which I referenced earlier, and align us with international best practice.”
“There would be no more speculation about when an inspection might arrive and no more operating under a cloud of uncertainty. It would professionalise the process and strengthen public trust—and, I would argue, the trust of school leaders and their staff. I will briefly address Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 202 and 203, which propose school inspections on a seven or 11-year cycle. Although I believe that those intervals are too long to provide the necessary accountability, I recognise their intention. If my four-year proposal is not to be accepted by the Parliament, I urge colleagues to at least support amendments 202 and 203 as a backstop, because a flawed cycle is better than no cycle at all. I welcome amendment 241, which would allow schools to request an inspection. That is pure common sense.”
“We all agree that the most efficient way to reduce the burden on the national health service is through preventative measures, because that will cost significantly less in the long term—we hear that argument regularly in this chamber. I would argue the exact same on this issue. If we want to reduce poverty, improve health outcomes and create a highly skilled and highly productive workforce, we must ensure that our schools are of the highest standard, and that implies regular inspection. A four-year cycle would ensure that every child, over the course of their primary or secondary journey, attends a school that will be inspected at least once. Is that really asking for too much? That is the baseline of fairness. A four-year cycle would also provide schools with a predictable timeline.”
“In our committee meetings at stage 2, I raised the point that a lack of regular inspection is not only a failure of policy but a failure of principle. We are supposed to be the champions of equity and quality in Scottish education, yet we permit an inspection regime that allows schools to go unvisited for many years. The cabinet secretary responded at stage 2 that the inspection capacity was limited and that a statutory duty could overburden the system. However, that is not a reason to evade accountability—it is a reason to resource it properly. If we accept the argument that we cannot afford to inspect our schools regularly, what are we really saying? We are saying that we cannot afford quality assurance in schools and that we cannot afford transparency. That is a position that no serious Government or party should adopt.”
“Scottish education used to be, and should be, the gold standard. Now, we cannot even seem to inspect our schools on a regular basis. Why does that matter? It matters because inspection is not a bureaucratic exercise but a cornerstone of public accountability. It tells the public how the education system is performing; it supports professional improvement; it creates conditions for trust and transparency; and it can identify issues before they become endemic. Amendments 19 and 22 would introduce a statutory requirement that every “educational establishment” be inspected “at least once every 4 years.” This is not an abstract or academic concern. It responds directly to what is a glaring weakness in the current system.”
“According to the 2015 report “A Continuum of Approaches to School Inspections: Cases from Europe”, which was commissioned from Dublin City University, most countries operate within a three to five-year inspection window. In England, Ofsted inspects state-funded schools that have previously been rated good or outstanding on a four-year cycle. Wales is just outside that average, as it operates a six-year inspection cycle that is supplemented by annual self-evaluation reporting. In Ireland, a multi-year rolling inspection programme applies to schools, which are typically inspected every three to five years. The Netherlands uses differentiated inspection cycles but guarantees inspections at least once every four years, even for high-performing schools. 20:45 However, in Scotland, half our schools have not been inspected for a very long time.”
“It means that parents are left without reliable information about the performance of their child’s school; that headteachers may spend an entire career without receiving external professional challenge; and that schools can drift unintentionally but measurably away from excellence without anyone noticing until it is too late. Amendments 19 and 22 would address that directly by requiring that each education authority establishment be inspected at least once every four years. That is reasonable, proportionate and achievable. It would bring Scotland into line with our neighbours, because statutory inspection cycles are the norm across Europe.”
“Audit Scotland, in its 2021 report “Improving outcomes for young people through school education”, highlighted that a fundamental weakness in the Scottish education system is that there is no statutory requirement for cyclical school inspections. Instead, Scotland operates a risk-based model that inspects only a small sample of schools annually—just 1.6 per cent of all schools in 2021-22—which means that, as I mentioned in response to an intervention from the First Minister, some schools in Scotland have not been inspected in more than a decade. That is not a theoretical concern but a reality.”
“I draw members’ attention to the procedural information on the amendments: amendment 201 is pre-empted by amendment 20 in group 12; amendment 24 is pre- empted by amendment 23 in group 12; amendment 26 is pre-empted by amendment 23 in group 12; and amendment 229 pre-empts amendment 36 in group 12. Stephen Kerr: My amendments in this group— 19 and 22—are rooted in one fundamental principle, which is that every learner in Scotland, regardless of postcode or background, has the right to attend a school that is regularly, rigorously and transparently inspected. That is not a radical demand but a basic requirement of quality assurance in any high-functioning public service.”
“Amendment 18 disagreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I take the opportunity to correct the record on the result of the vote on amendment 198, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, which has been dealt with already. In fact, the result is as follows: For 49, Against 69, Abstentions 0. The amendment was not agreed to; the correction does not change the result of the vote as intimated previously. Group 14 is on frequency of inspection. Amendment 19, in the name of Stephen Kerr, is grouped with amendments 201, 22, 202, 203, 24, 26 to 28, 229, 230 and 241.”
“Again, my app did not connect. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Whittle. Your vote will be recorded. For Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East 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) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) 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) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (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) 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) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (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) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) 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) 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) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 49, Against 68, Abstentions 0.”
“I advise members that I exercised my power under rule 9.8.4A(c) to allow the debate on the group to continue beyond the limit in order to get to the end of it. I call the cabinet secretary to wind up. Jenny Gilruth: I am grateful to Ms Duncan- Glancy and her office for working with me and officials in relation to amendment 17. I again urge Mr Kerr not to move his amendments in the group and, instead, to support the amendments in my name. Amendment 17 agreed to. Section 30—The inspection function Amendment 18 moved—[Stephen Kerr]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Brian Whittle: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry.”
“However, Mr Kerr’s amendment 18 highlights a lot of the issues that we see in classrooms today and which teachers, pupils, parents and others are telling us are of huge concern—the number of teachers on temporary contracts, the number of newly qualified teachers who cannot get jobs, the experience of violence and poor behaviour in school and, of course, the experience of pupils with support needs. Those are all aspects that the inspectors should be looking at. For those reasons, I support both amendment 17 and amendment 18. Together, they form a good group of amendments, and I encourage Parliament to support both of them. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Members will note that the agreed time limit for the debate on group 13 to finish has passed.”
“We affirm that schools, staff and learners deserve an inspection system that asks the right questions, demands the right standards and helps every school to improve. I urge colleagues across the chamber to support amendments 18 and 45 and restore both purpose and integrity to school inspection in Scotland. Pam Duncan-Glancy: I thank the cabinet secretary for working with me and my team on the purpose of inspection. We got to the place where we should be.”
“By writing the things in amendment 18 into the statutory inspection regime, Parliament will ensure that school inspections in Scotland provide a full picture and actionable recommendations on the things that matter most for improving our schools. Implementing them will help to drive improvements such as safer classrooms, better support for children with ASN, more consistent staffing for exam courses and a more motivated teaching workforce. Those are exactly the outcomes that should be highlighted in a parliamentary speech at stage 3. I underline that amendment 18 represents a well-founded and crucial step towards delivering excellence and equity in Scottish education. This is not tokenism. These are elements of fact, grounded in truth. We affirm that education cannot flourish in denial.”
“I understand that certain members of the Government party might not want me to talk about any of those things, because they shed a light on the state of Scottish education after 18 years under its stewardship. However, that does not mean that we should not include those things in the bill as required elements of an inspection. The issues are intertwined with one another. Poor morale—[Interruption.] The First Minister can speak as loudly as he likes, because I have the microphone. He is chuntering away. Poor morale is caused by bad behaviour, which is caused by lack of stability in classes, which is caused by there being no regular teacher or a lack of pupil support. That poor behaviour leads to teachers leaving, and the cycle repeats.”
“That is why amendment 18 includes a provision for the chief inspector to add other areas of relevance to an inspection, which is quite right. Amendment 45 would ensure that those considerations are reflected in the reports that are laid before Parliament. Transparency must match rigour. As I have tried to illustrate, each element of amendment 18 is backed by strong evidence and stakeholder support. All those factors, from discipline and the learning environment to staffing and teacher morale, are vital to the quality of schooling and they have often been raised by teachers unions, parents groups and educational researchers as needing attention.”
“In fact, it is my party that most consistently brings the subject of education to the Parliament at all. Therefore, I do not feel like apologising for trying to explain why this amendment is a big amendment about what constitutes a thorough inspection and what elements there should be. Members might not agree with it, but for them to applaud the suggestion that I should somehow know my place, know where I stand in the affairs of this Parliament and sit down and shut up will not work with me. I will move on—I am near the end, actually—to proposed paragraph (h), which says: “such other matters as the Chief Inspector considers appropriate.” My point is that education is dynamic. New challenges emerge all the time, and inspectors must have the freedom to adapt. That should strike a chord with what the cabinet secretary said a few moments ago.”
“You are obviously perfectly entitled to speak to your amendment, which you have done very thoroughly. However, we are now about 15 minutes on, and the normal indication is about five minutes. I ask you to please draw your remarks to a close—[Interruption.] Stephen Kerr: I was unaware that there is any kind of time limit. I am trying to give a genuine— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, please resume your seat. If you were to speak with your business manager, you would understand a bit more about this process, because they have the information that you may have been seeking in that regard. Please resume and bring your remarks to a close. Stephen Kerr: Yes, I am—[Interruption.] Listen, it is not my party that has brought stage 3 of the Education (Scotland) Bill to the Scottish Parliament on the last Tuesday before the summer recess.”
“Being on a string of temporary contracts causes stress and lowers morale, which ultimately pushes some very talented people to leave the profession that they chose and love. For instance, after finishing the teacher induction scheme, only 12.8 per cent of new primary teachers in 2023-24 obtained a permanent post, down from 57.6 per cent six years earlier. Amendment 18 would require inspectors to consider what proportion of a school’s teachers are permanent versus temporary or probationers. The rationale is that a school that relies too heavily on temporary staff might signal deeper problems in workforce planning or management culture. The question that we need to ask ourselves is, when we see 30 per cent, as is the case— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, could you resume your seat for a wee second?”
“That churn erodes continuity for learners, it disincentivises careers in teaching and it puts probationers in deeply vulnerable situations. That uncertainty is corrosive for the profession and the pupils. Inspections must include an assessment of staffing stability, in respect of both numbers and contract quality. Why does that matter? First, a high reliance on temporary staff can disrupt continuity for pupils. A school with many temporary teachers might experience mid-year staffing changes or temps rotating year to year. As the EIS has argued, schools cannot maintain consistently high-quality learning if a significant chunk of the staff are effectively visiting teachers with no job security. Secondly, I am also mindful of the teachers themselves.”
“He had worked hard to get there—he had worked in Tesco and McDonald’s as he went through his teaching qualification—but now he is faced with the prospect of not having a permanent position and having to return to the piecemeal work that he had been doing before. How do we feel about that? I know how I feel about it, because I looked into his face—this was a committed professional and someone who has a vocation in teaching. You could see it in the children in the class; they loved him, they loved his teaching, and he was interesting. He was exactly the sort of teacher that I would want my kids and grandkids to have. Yet, here he was, facing the prospect of a very uncertain future. We should be looking at the situation of newly qualified teachers closely.”
“One is “the type of employment contract held by teachers and staff in the establishment” and the other is “the number of teachers in the establishment who— (i) are completing probationary service, or (ii) are newly qualified teachers, having completed their probationary service no more than 5 years before the date of the inspection”. 20:30 One in six teachers in Scotland is currently employed on a temporary contract. Newly qualified teachers routinely complete probation and are then left scrambling for piecemeal roles. I recently visited a school in the Central Scotland region, where I met a fantastic young teacher, but he was running out of time and told me that he had no prospect of a permanent position.”
“These are often practical subjects that are crucial for skills and for certain career paths, and when they vanish, our young people lose opportunities. I would have thought that all of us in the chamber were interested in underpinning equality of opportunity for Scotland’s children and young people. That applies to core exam subjects such as maths and English. Staffing is strained. SLS found that secondary schools start each day with an average of 2.9 teaching vacancies unfilled, even before accounting for teachers who are off sick. I could say a lot about vacancy rates, but I will pass over those and summarise as follows. Inspections must ask whether the workforce is meeting the needs of pupils. I will consider the next two elements of the amendment together.”
“The next element of amendment 18 is on recommendations on “whether the number of teachers and staff in the establishment can meet the needs of the persons undertaking a qualification in that establishment”. A 2025 survey by School Leaders Scotland revealed that more than a third of secondary schools had to cut or reduce course offerings due to a lack of teachers. It highlighted that subjects such as business studies, computing, home economics, modern languages, modern studies and physics are “losing a foothold” in timetables, and that in some schools, those courses have been withdrawn entirely for lack of a specialist teacher. For example, 20 schools reported removing computing from their curriculum; others could offer national 4 and 5 computing only by assigning a non-specialist teacher from another subject. It goes on.”
“By 2021, an EIS health and wellbeing survey of more than 16,000 teachers was painting a grim picture: more than 70 per cent of respondents said they felt “stressed” frequently or all the time, and fully 50 per cent rated their wellbeing at work as “poor” or “very poor”. In 2022-23, Scottish teachers took 383,000 sick days—the highest number in more than a decade—while data compiled by the Improvement Service showed that stress is now the number 1 cause of teacher absence across Scotland. The Improvement Service warned that that trend is expected to worsen in coming years if nothing changes. That highlights the importance of including that element in inspections. Are staff protected? Are they listened to? Are they being treated with professional dignity?”
“The next element of the amendment, which is on “the morale and wellbeing of teachers and staff”— [Interruption.] I am sorry that I am taking so long to spell this out, but the importance of each of the elements of amendment 18 needs to be illustrated, because the morale and mental health of teachers and school staff are not soft issues—they directly influence teaching quality and pupil experience. When staff are demoralised or burned out, absenteeism rises and continuity suffers, and it becomes harder to retain good teachers, which leads to shortages. Unfortunately, multiple surveys since 2018 indicate worsening stress and wellbeing among Scotland’s teachers. Even before the pandemic, an EIS survey in 2019 found that only 33 per cent of teachers felt generally satisfied in their job.”
“Front-line testimony from teachers and families suggests that there is an on-going ASN support crisis. The Scottish Secondary Teachers Association has warned of “a system not built to meet” pupils’ “needs”. Earlier this year, the SSTA president, Stuart Hunter, said: “ASN staff are overwhelmed, and the system is breaking.” That leaves class teachers trying to juggle full teaching loads, plus the role of learning support. We cannot continue to have a policy of placing children with complex needs in classrooms without the means to support them, and then leaving it to teachers to manage the consequences. Inspections must ask whether ASN pupils are being supported in practice, not just in theory.”
“A fundamental problem identified by the Morgan review in 2020 is that the implementation of ASN support is “fragmented” and “inconsistent”. In practice, that can mean that ASN provision differs wildly by council area or school. A child might flourish with good support in one school, while a similar child elsewhere might struggle without it. The Morgan review concluded that many aspects of the system, from staff training to resources and co-ordination, need improvement. Those findings were accepted by the Scottish Government, which developed an ASN action plan, but progress has been slow—by late 2024, only 40 of 76 recommended actions had been completed. That context makes it critical that inspections rigorously examine how each school supports ASN learners.”
“Angela Morgan’s 2020 review condemned the implementation of Scotland’s additional support for learning laws as being “fragmented” and “inconsistent” and Audit Scotland backed that up in 2021, saying that far too many learners with ASN, particularly those in mainstream settings, are not receiving the support that they need and that the presumption of mainstreaming, while well intended, has not been matched with adequate training or staffing. Audit Scotland reported a persistent attainment gap and said that pupils with identified ASN achieved significantly lower exam results on average and were less likely than their peers to go to positive destinations—we know how much the Government loves to talk about those— after school.”
“An internal EIS survey found that 72.8 per cent of secondary school branches and 65.5 per cent of primary teachers identified smaller class sizes as a top priority for improving inclusion and behaviour. Inspectors must therefore observe class sizes and pupil-teacher ratios because their effect on classroom atmosphere provides a vital context for a school’s performance. The next element of amendment 18 is proposed paragraph (c), which covers “the support provided to persons with additional support needs, including access to appropriate resources and specialist support”.”
“That environment is not only about buildings; it is also about class context and culture. Class size is one key indicator. In primary schools, the average class size grew to 23.3 pupils by 2022 and more than 10 per cent of primary pupils were in classes of more than 30, despite an official policy aim to cap class sizes at 25 for pupils in primary 1 and 30 for primaries 2 and 3. Secondary school classes can be even larger for popular subjects, although official averages are not collected. All of that matters for inspections because overly large classes can undermine the quality of the learning environment. Noise levels rise, individual support dwindles and teachers struggle to manage diverse learning needs.”
“If we cannot guarantee safety, every other aim—equity, attainment and inclusion—is undermined. Amendment 18 would enshrine that focus in the heart of inspections. Amendment 18’s proposed paragraph (b) is about “the quality of the learning environment”. Audit Scotland’s 2021 report “Improving outcomes for young people through school education” made clear the stark disparities between schools in different council areas. I hope that members will all agree that the variation in areas from digital connectivity and support staffing to access to up- to-date sports facilities and safe buildings, is unacceptable. The physical and digital infrastructure of a school directly affects learner outcomes, so inspectors must be empowered to assess the fitness of the learning environment in its totality.”