Martin Whitfield
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“To ask the Scottish Government, regarding any impact on its energy policy and strategy, and in light of reports that Torness nuclear power station is due to close by 2030, what its response is to the United Kingdom Government’s new fusion strategy, which aims to deliver thousands of jobs and long-term energy security. (S6O-05690)”
“I ask members to note my entry in the members’ register of interests. As we come to the conclusion of today’s debate, I rise to offer the full support of Scottish Labour for the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill.”
“The last few motions before us today are the final motions from the committee designed to put the standing orders book in its best possible state for the next session. The first motion, regarding the sixth report, relates to cross-party groups. We have had some challenges this session with the compliance of cross-party groups.”
“Last year’s fostering and adoption statistics show that children who are going through the adoption system face significant delays, with some waiting for six months or longer.”
“I will dwell on the comments he made as convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, because it is a tribute to him that he saw, in that committee, the ability to fulfil a role that is crucial for committees in a unicameral Parliament.”
“The Presiding Officer: The next question is, that motion S6M-21167, in the name of Graeme Dey, on a motion on legislative consent for the Armed Forces Bill, which is UK legislation, be agreed to.”
The complete record
Every one of 844 lines we hold for Martin Whitfield, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 17.
“A number of members have pointed out the challenges around what the current postal service provides in relation to the 19th century concept of postal acceptance, which will be abolished. I hope that I speak for the whole chamber when I say that that is a criticism not of our postal workers but perhaps of the organisation that they find themselves in. The Law Commission’s purpose was explicit. It needed rules that are clear, as certain as possible and accessible to lawyer and layperson alike. That latter point is hugely important. Colin Borland of the Federation of Small Businesses welcomed that approach.”
“It is a pleasure to close this, if not graveyard debate, perhaps more terms and conditions slot that we find ourselves in, given that we are discussing contract law. The bill is a serious and thoughtful attempt to modernise Scots contract law that introduces clear statutory rules on contract formation and remedies for breach that will improve certainty, accessibility and fairness, particularly for people who negotiate without the specialist legal advice that some companies and corporations have. As we have heard, the bill stems from the Scottish Law Commission’s 2018 review. Like others, I thank Lady Paton and the commission for the valuable work that they do.”
“Lady Paton has personally overseen work on damages for personal injury and homicide, while working with the Scottish Government to introduce five SLC bills, including this one, in this parliamentary session. Her tenure as chair of the commission has come to an end, and I wish her all the very best in moving forward. I move, That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Contract (Formation and Remedies) (Scotland) Bill. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Stuart McMillan, to speak on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. 13:23”
“In particular, I thank the lead commissioner, Professor Hector MacQueen, for the time and effort that he has given to both the SLC and the Scottish Government; and I thank Lorna Richardson, a lecturer in commercial law at the University of Edinburgh, for her work with us on the general scheme for reforming the law of retention, which we consulted on earlier this year. I also thank everyone who gave evidence to the committee, and the members and clerks of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their work in scrutinising this bill. Finally, I thank Lady Paton, the chair of the Scottish Law Commission, for all her hard work over the past seven years at the commission.”
“The general practice is to provide for transitional and commencement matters in regulations, and section 25 of the bill provides for those powers. The specifics will be worked out as the final form of the bill becomes clearer, keeping in mind that any amendments might have a bearing on the most desirable approach to be taken here. Overall, having listened to the stage 1 evidence, I am pleased that there is broad consensus on the approach being taken in the bill, and I welcome the committee’s recommendation to agree to its general principles. I thank the Scottish Law Commission for the considerable work that went into this reform project.”
“Will the Scottish Government’s proposed amendments take account of recent case law, which I think speaks to some of what the minister is referring to? Siobhian Brown: Yes, we will be considering that, too. I know that the committee is supportive of the amendments, but it has asked me to look at drafting suggestions. I am willing to do so, and my officials will discuss matters with stakeholders in the lead-up to stage 2. The final point that I would like to make about the bill concerns transitional provisions. A number of witnesses were strongly of the view that the provisions, if agreed to by the Parliament, should apply to contracts that are entered into after the commencement date, not to contracts that have already been formed. As I told the committee when I gave evidence, I share that view at the moment.”
“Presiding Officer, I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am a former teacher. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of an increase of 63 full-time equivalent teachers in 2025 compared with the previous year, how it will fulfil its commitment to recruit 3,500 new teachers before the end of the current parliamentary session. (S6O-05312)”
“I urge members to support the bill at stage 3. Let us make residential outdoor education an entitlement, not a privilege. In doing so, we will give Scotland’s children confidence, resilience and—do you know what?—a bit of joy and happiness, which they deserve. 17:14”
“The bill will stand as a legacy of her work in the Scottish Parliament and as a testament to her passion for Scotland’s children and young people. She has championed the cause tirelessly, because she understands the life- changing impact that such experiences have. If the bill passes, it will not just be a policy achievement; it will be a reflection on her dedication to fairness and opportunity. The children who will laugh, who will hug a teddy tight on what they think is a cold night and who will get covered in mud will probably never know Liz Smith’s name, but those children will find a resilience inside themselves because of what, I hope, she will achieve today with the bill. On behalf of those nameless children of today and tomorrow, who might become MSPs in the future, I say a massive thank you to Liz Smith.”
“The bill is not about imposing burdens; it is about investing in Scotland’s future and giving our young people experiences that will help them to thrive in school, in work and in life. It sets out that outdoor learning is not an optional extra but an essential part of a well-rounded education. It is right that we have picked up on the correspondence that we have received, including from the teaching profession, during the passage of the bill—and I welcome the Government’s agreement to collect data on the bill’s effect— because only by working hand in hand with our teachers and other adults who support our young people can we ensure that outdoor learning experiences are the best that they can be. I am conscious of time, but I would like to pay a short and, I hope, deeply embarrassing tribute to Liz Smith.”
“They spark ambitions, strengthen relationships and improve wellbeing, as we heard from the stage 1 evidence. Teachers have said that pupils return from such experiences more engaged, more motivated and more successful in their learning. Pupils often see their teachers as human beings, perhaps for the first time, and some teachers perhaps see the young people as human beings for the first time. Outdoor residential education plays a vital role in meeting Scotland’s wider educational goals. It complements the learning for sustainability approach under the curriculum for excellence. At a time when mental health challenges among young people are rising, the benefits of time outdoors, away from screens and immersed in Scotland’s landscapes, cannot be overstated.”
“As we conclude this debate, I do not want to dwell on the journey that the bill has gone through and mention things such as financial memorandums; I want to return to the heart of the bill, which is the belief that every child in Scotland should have the chance to experience residential outdoor education. Such education is not just a trip away from home; it opens doors to opportunities that will shape lives. We know from decades of evidence and from the testimony at stage 1 that such experiences build confidence, resilience, independence and team working, problem solving and leadership skills in our young people in ways that simply are not possible in classrooms. For many young people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, residential outdoor experiences are transformative.”
“There will always be circumstances in which affordability becomes a consideration for some children and young people and it would not be appropriate to ask for a financial contribution. I therefore welcome Mr Mason’s amendment. I support amendments 4 and 10. I move amendment 2. 16:15”
“For those reasons, I encourage the Parliament to support amendment 10. Amendment 4 seeks to make clear that affordability should not be a barrier to children and young people accessing residential outdoor education in the future. Liz Smith has been very clear that her bill seeks to build on, rather than put a stop to, that good practice, and she has been clear that mixed funding models must, therefore, continue to be supported. Indeed, the stage 2 amendment from the member in charge to enable parental contributions to be sought, which was agreed to, was a welcome addition in that regard. However, as was made clear in the committee during stage 2, there should be discretion and flexibility as to when and from whom financial contributions might be sought.”
“Amendment 10 seeks to build on existing bill provisions to support education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools in considering what steps they may need to take to ensure that all children and young people, and especially those with an additional support need, are able to access residential outdoor education. Legislation already provides for any support need, whether short or long term, to be considered and, where appropriate, supported. There are specific groups who can expect their needs to be assessed, including looked-after children, young carers and children with multiple and/or complex needs. The guidance will have to show how all those different types of need among children and young people might be supported or addressed in how residential education is provided. That is something that I think we will all welcome.”
“That also applies to children with additional support needs, who, as we have heard throughout the bill process, are often excluded from residential experiences that their peers enjoy, because provision is simply not accessible. If we are putting residential outdoor education on a statutory footing, we must do so in a way that seeks to remedy those exclusions and make provision equitable. I therefore welcome Mr Balfour’s amendment 10. The bill already requires that the residential outdoor education that is provided be “suitable to a pupil’s age, ability, aptitude and any additional support needs”. The guidance will be required to set out how that suitability should be assessed.”
“Should the bill pass today, by the time it comes into force, the section that is referenced in the 1980 act will effectively have been superseded by the Education (Scotland) Act 2025. I therefore encourage the Parliament to support amendments 2, 3 and 5. Amendments 10 and 4 are the more substantive amendments in this group. Throughout the bill process, I have been focused on ensuring that its provisions help to give effect to the Scottish ministers’ programme for government commitment to “make sure that pupils from lower-income families can take part in school trips, providing support for children to go on curriculum-related trips and activities, and Primary 6/7 residentials”.”
“Natalie Don-Innes: I do not believe that it weakens it at all—and the other amendments in the group speak to that. I think that we are covered there. Amendment 3 seeks to remove the superfluous word “carers”, because carers, who are an accepted part of the family structure in law, are already provided for in the definition in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which the bill seeks to amend. The 1980 act provides a definition of the term “parent” that includes any person who “has parental responsibilities ... in relation to, or has care of a child or young person”. The amendment is a technical change that seeks solely to ensure consistency with the definition of “parent” in the 1980 act. Amendment 5 is a minor technical amendment to replace a reference to legislation that is to be repealed.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 2 is on guidance: detail. Amendment 2, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 10 and 3 to 5. Natalie Don-Innes: Amendments 2, 3 and 5 in my name are largely technical amendments. Amendment 2 relates to the terminology that was used in drafting the original bill provisions on guidance, including the paragraph on standards. Although standards will clearly be important to ensure consistency in the quality of provision, that cannot be compelled through guidance. Even statutory guidance cannot impose duties, so my amendment 2 seeks to adjust the wording, to remove “must” and replace it with “should”. Martin Whitfield: Could the minister confirm that the change made by amendment 2 in no way weakens the expectation that the guidance will be robust and enforceable?”
“I support all the amendments in the group, but I take the opportunity to comment on amendment 7. Before I do so, I thank Liz Smith for all her work on the bill and, in particular, for the compliment that she gave to my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy. Amendment 7 relates to the statutory guidance, and I very much welcome the on-going commitment of the minister and the Scottish Government to the UNCRC and the need for meaningful discussion with our young people and their representatives, particularly in this challenging area where there might be a disability or a challenge in accessing and understanding what they are being asked about. In short, I thank the Government and the member for ensuring that amendment 7 was lodged. I look forward to the same level of commitment from the Government in forthcoming bills. Amendment 1 agreed to.”
“It is also an obligation on the Parliament, and I will pick up the challenge that the Deputy First Minister was concerned that I would throw at her. It rests on the Parliament as a whole to create and drive the momentum for change that this community rightly demands—and which, frankly, Scotland deserves—in order to be a better place. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Tess White to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. You have a generous six minutes. 16:22”
“The committee heard evidence about the increase in numbers and the fact that we need a work plan for how we are going to develop the pipeline of BSL interpreters and teachers. I know that the Scottish Government is starting work on that, and it would be interesting to hear how it sees that process being rolled out, above and beyond the challenge for young people in Scotland to speak other languages. Given that, along with Gaelic, BSL is a language of Scotland, they have a right to speak it. It is a significant community’s first language, and we need to address that. We can deliver for this community, but it will require the Scottish Government to listen to the voices of BSL users, experts and the deaf community as a whole.”
“We have spoken about the need for a pipeline of interpreters and teachers. I remember the 1+2 foreign language policy and the joy that I heard when Glasgow picked up BSL as one of the languages that it wanted to teach its children. I go back to Miles Briggs’s comment about watching children in a classroom learning BSL. The fun of being able to swear at the teacher, particularly a teacher who does not know BSL—even if it is just by using the alphabet—has amused a significant number of children who I had the pleasure of teaching. We have heard about the joy that young people have in discovering something new and being able to communicate with fellow young people, even if, on occasion, that can be quite mischievous.”
“Martin Whitfield: I applaud Karen Adam on that point—or actually her father. People want access to their human rights, and this is their Parliament so they should be able to access everything that happens in here. We recognise Gaelic and BSL. To appallingly misquote a former MP of East Lothian, if we cannot come up with a system whereby the Parliament is accessible to everyone, what we are actually doing is closing the Parliament off to members of the Scottish community, which is wrong. I am very grateful for the member’s intervention. I will turn back to education and the challenge that our BSL and deaf community suffers from. On a number of occasions, we have heard about the challenge—the numbers of teachers who are BSL qualified, or even BSL competent within that, and the support that is available.”
“Those challenges should not rest on our BSL communities; they should rest on our educational community and our local authorities, and they should rest on the Parliament and the Scottish Government, which should do better, frankly. Karen Adam: Absolutely—it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that inclusion. Martin Whitfield has just mentioned the Parliament, and he spoke earlier about the interpreters who interpret our debates, but I would note that they do not do them all; it is only specific debates that are chosen. My dad came to speak to me about that point. He said, “Actually, I don’t get to see things on transport or on the budget. It’s always about BSL or disability things.” We could do better in the Scottish Parliament, too, and translate everything as standard. The service today is wonderful.”
“That is hard to read in a report, but it is right that that appears in the committee’s report, so that those who read it and those who choose to make choices on behalf of others realise people’s lived experience. That was very powerful. I will also pick up on the point about education. We have heard an enormous amount of evidence in the debate about the importance of BSL in the journey through childhood and about the challenges—the challenges at transition or at entry to nursery, and the challenge of maintaining ability and sometimes interest, in the case of a young person who cannot access anything that is happening in the classroom.”
“Those people for whom BSL is a “first language”, to use the convener’s proper description, have a right to access their human rights through their first language. We have not just a duty but an obligation to ensure that that can happen. There have been a number of very powerful speeches from across the chamber. I will pick up first on Pam Gosal’s contribution, on Marie McNair’s enormously powerful speech and on Emma Roddick’s contribution, among others, regarding the evidence that was heard about the risk among the deaf and deaf/hearing community—in that women in particular suffer from the risk of domestic abuse. That was so well articulated by Pam Gosal as well as other members.”
“The committee’s report represents an incredibly balanced and powerful use of post-legislative scrutiny. As has been picked up in a number of speeches, and as was picked up by the Deputy First Minister in response to my intervention, the committee has presented the Parliament with an opportunity to make things better. We are not starting the process at stage 1—we are starting a long way into the journey—but it is still a journey. We should take that powerful message from today’s debate and from the committee’s work—and also from those who contributed to the work of the committee. They have clearly shown where things have worked well. As Paul McLennan said, the act was “world leading” legislation when it came out. We are talking about a language that we have put on the statute book as a language of Scotland.”
“I will start with my little pet subject of post- legislative scrutiny, which was powerfully mentioned by Miles Briggs. The work that the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee has done on its report is probably the best example of post-legislative scrutiny that I have had the privilege to see this session. It was not required by legislation or demanded by the Parliament. I hope that I do not embarrass the committee convener by saying this, but those who sat on the committee and the power of the convener herself brought about an incredibly powerful piece of post-legislative scrutiny. Depending on which side of the chamber they sit on, members either fear the concept of returning to legislation—as they see it as Government bashing—or see post-legislative scrutiny as an opportunity to do that.”
“The opportunity to speak in this debate is special because we have an opportunity to acknowledge genuine progress and the delivery of support to, and recognition of, a powerful and important community, which is Scotland’s deaf and hearing- impaired community. Like others, I thank the committee and especially all those who contributed evidence for what I genuinely believe to be an important report. I also thank the BSL interpreters who have appeared on screens in the chamber today. I know that they are there all the time when we are broadcasting, but it is very nice to see them on the screens in the chamber so that we non-BSL users can also see the access that is available. The committee’s report highlights some very important areas, and I will touch on a number of them.”
“People agreeing to things without doing the analysis up front is the bane of my life, because it is one thing to say that one is going to do something and it is quite another to make sure that one delivers on that. It is important that we do that detailed analysis first. There is one recommendation that we have declined, and that is because it is for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and not the”
“The report rightly recognises that the act is something that empowers people, increases the visibility and use of BSL, and continues to improve access to services for BSL users. However, the report also shows us more about the continued barriers and challenges that the community faces. There are 44 recommendations. We have assessed each recommendation against two factors. First, the extent to which it aligns with the priority areas and actions in the national plan, and, secondly, its overall deliverability, including resource and cost implications. We have accepted, either in part or in full, 40 of the recommendations. We have agreed to consider three recommendations further because they need more detailed analysis.”
“Those are wide-ranging sectors that cover all aspects of society. As I said to the committee this week, often, somebody’s experience in one part of Scotland might differ from a person’s experience in another part of Scotland, which is why local BSL plans could arguably be more important for some communities. We have been clear that our six- year plan is not static; it is not something that we write and then leave. It is an iterative process that can respond to new and emerging challenges, and we have agreed to learn from and build on the actions that are in it. The committee’s in-depth report is excellent. It took evidence from those with lived experience and reflected on the impact that the act has had.”
“It places a duty on the Government and on listed authorities to promote and increase the use and understanding of BSL, which is key to bringing about the change that we want to see. The BSL plans are the vehicles for that promotion. Two plans have been published in the past 10 years, sitting alongside local BSL plans produced by listed authorities. The current national BSL plan concludes in 2029. At the heart of it is a clear focus on the accessibility of public services and tackling the systemic barriers that BSL users face in their daily lives. The 10 priority themes in the plan are areas that the deaf and deafblind communities have told us are important to them— education, health, justice and culture; all the same themes that were highlighted in evidence taken by the committee.”
“To be blunt, I do not think that we can ever have enough momentum to carry us through, so I am happy to accept Martin Whitfield’s request for added impetus and more momentum. There are a number of recommendations in the report that can focus our minds. As Karen Adam said, the Scottish Government has accepted the vast majority of the recommendations. The only ones that we did not accept are either because they are not for us, or because they need a bit more detailed work, but there are very few of those. None of my comments should be misrepresented, as so much work has been done, particularly in recent years. The British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015 is flagship legislation that everyone should be proud of.”
“Will the Deputy First Minister take an intervention? Kate Forbes: I would love a challenge from Martin Whitfield. Martin Whitfield: I have no challenge. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that part of the committee’s report suggests that the momentum behind BSL has been lost, particularly after the first national plan, and that there has been a level of disappointment with the second national plan? Does she agree that we need to grasp the momentum that existed when the 2015 act was passed, to put BSL where it belongs as a language in Scotland and a first language for so many people? Kate Forbes: I certainly think that the committee’s report and its scrutiny have given BSL added impetus.”
“Graeme Dey: I move, That the Parliament acknowledges and recognises the importance of Scotland’s veterans and Armed Forces community and greatly values the significant contribution that it makes to society; recognises that the skills and experiences that it brings enrich communities; continues to support the Veterans Strategy Action Plan, which has a clear vision to ensure the best outcomes for veterans and their families; notes the progress made in delivering the action plan and the future work to develop an updated plan following the publication of the new UK-wide Veterans Strategy; welcomes the findings of the Scottish Veterans Commissioner’s latest progress report and acknowledges both the successes she identifies and the areas where further work is needed, and agrees that the Scottish Government should continue to work with partners across the public, private and third sectors to ensure that the veterans and Armed Forces community receives the access to support that they need.”
“The report sets out the breadth of work that has been undertaken over the past year and demonstrates our commitment to ensuring the veterans and their families suffer no disadvantage as a result of their service. I give my heartfelt thanks to all those who contributed to this work—our partners in the public, private and third sectors, and the many individuals who worked tirelessly every day to support our armed forces community. Together, we will continue to build a Scotland that recognises the contributions of our veterans and their families and ensures that they are supported to lead fulfilling lives. I look forward to members’ contributions to the debate, and to responding to them in due course. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Minister, can you move the motion?”
“We continue to engage with underrepresented groups in the armed forces and veterans community in Scotland to ensure that their needs and experiences are better understood and supported. As colleagues will be aware, last month the commissioner published a short report into the bereaved armed forces community. Although the report did not include any formal recommendations, we will be taking forward, as a priority, work to raise awareness of the bereaved armed forces community and the need, as she rightly pointed out, to ensure that they are explicitly referenced and considered within the development of policies, guidance and services, where that is appropriate. I and the Government remain committed to providing the very best support for our veterans, their families and service families.”
“Just last week, I met the Scottish Veterans Commissioner and Màiri McAllan, the Cabinet Secretary for Housing, to discuss the work that is under way with key stakeholders and to agree the best approach to progressing the recommendations in the veterans homelessness prevention pathway relating to local authorities and social landlords. In addition, we are working with Veterans Scotland’s housing group on prioritisation of the key pathway recommendations for the Scottish Government. Parliament passed the Housing (Scotland) Act 2025 this year. The legislation will, along with vital partnership working with our stakeholders, help us to support our veterans in their times of need.”
“It is essential that we balance pace with quality and ensure that the pathway meets the complex needs of veterans and builds confidence in the system from day 1. The number of veterans who are assessed as homeless has decreased by 3 per cent over the past year, while the proportion of veterans in the overall number of households that are assessed as homeless or threatened with homelessness has remained at 2 per cent, which is roughly proportionate to the veterans’ population as a whole. However, we know that some veterans can be at greater risk of homelessness, and that is recognised in our homelessness strategy and in our housing emergency action plan.”
“Does the minister agree with me and Forces Children Scotland about the challenge that children of service people face in this transition? Does he agree that children should be explicitly mentioned and targeted in the whole-family wellbeing support that the Scottish Government is championing? Graeme Dey: Martin Whitfield makes a reasonable point. I go back to the point that I was making when I took Martin Whitfield’s intervention. Work is under way to intensify promotion of the scheme in question, with the help of some of our key stakeholders. I hope to report that significantly more practices have signed up in the coming months. Plans are now progressing quickly for our veterans mental health and wellbeing pathway, and we hope to have in place the pilot for that quite soon.”
“Of course, last year, the Labour Party was not able to bring itself to vote for the Government’s budget and the investment that has sat alongside it, driving that increase in teacher numbers. It is interesting that Mr Whitfield comes to the chamber today to talk about humility, and yet he does not appear to have any answers himself. The Presiding Officer: I call Rona Mackay, to be followed by Willie Rennie—[Interruption.] Let us hear one another, colleagues.”
“At time for reflection today, we heard that democracy requires humility, so I am asking for an answer to Miles Briggs’s question. Will the SNP Government keep its promise of 3,500 more teachers by the end of the current parliamentary session? Jenny Gilruth: I did not quite catch time for reflection as I was coming into the chamber. There is much humility on the statistics today around about where we need to drive improvements. Of course, we heard from Mr Whitfield’s colleague about the requirements around attendance and I have engaged with Roz McCall on our children and young people who are aged two and the uptake of ELC. As I outlined in my previous response, we have seen an increase in teacher numbers this year. I thought that that would be welcomed by the Labour Party.”
“It is not the most robust system, and changes need to be made to it, but if we do not address the issue now, we will never solve any of these problems. The Government is not delivering fairness. It is hiding behind consultations while students from deprived backgrounds, disabled learners and care leavers continue to face barriers. The committee’s report must be a wake-up call. The Government cannot consult its way to fairness. Students need action, not another talking shop. The question is whether the Government will act or whether it will keep making promises that it cannot—or chooses not—to keep. 16:17”
“Our students have exam numbers, medical numbers and national insurance numbers. We number at the drop of a hat, so it is unforgivable that we do not have a unique learner number that would allow us to track the progress of our young people. Miles Briggs: I come back to Willie Rennie’s point, on which I hope we will hear from the minister later. I do not think that the Government has built IT systems that are capable of putting in place a unique learner number. The lack of investment in IT in our schools is at the heart of the issue. Martin Whitfield: It is certainly true that there is not enough investment, but we have the SEEMiS information system, which is mineable, in all our high schools.”
“Brian Whittle: I thank Martin Whitfield for giving way in what I think is a very good speech. Does he agree that it would be a huge leap forward if we were able to link the data from education, health and welfare? Martin Whitfield: I am going to steal Mr Whittle’s suggestion. Goodness me—what a good idea. Ben Macpherson: Yesterday, the committee agreed to an amendment at stage 2 of the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill that will enable exactly what Mr Whitfield and Mr Whittle have just called for, so I look forward to the Labour Party and the Conservative Party voting for the bill at stage 3. Martin Whitfield: If provisions to introduce a unique learner number are added to the bill, I can categorically confirm my support for it. I am conscious of time. Data is incredibly important.”
“When those activities are cut, people will say, “It’s not for me.” Another student said: “Funding constraints have forced cuts to impactful programmes. This is undesirable and damaging.” Let us talk about the data quality that must underpin accountability. The committee supports the introduction of a unique learner number so that students’ journeys can be tracked across schools, colleges and universities. Up until today, the Government’s response on data and accountability has, I suggest, been incredibly weak. Today, the minister has undertaken to think afresh about the issue, and I genuinely welcome that. However, I am concerned about the fact that it has taken a new minister, at the end of a parliamentary session, to say that the Government will think again.”
“They provide the articulation routes that allow disadvantaged learners to successfully progress to university, but the Government has cut college funding in real terms by 20 per cent since 2021- 22. Those are not my figures; they are Audit Scotland’s figures. That represents not parity of esteem but neglect. Practitioners have said that the cuts have led to a reduction in the number of widening access activities, especially in-person events. Those are vital for our rural students and for students who are concerned about what their next steps will be, so that they can sit down with someone who will talk about the experience that they will have and say, “Yes, it’s a challenge, but it’s fun.” Jamie Hepburn said that university was the time of his life. People learn about that through face-to-face discussions.”
“Those are real voices and they deserve real action, not another round of talking shops. We have heard from members across the chamber that there are massive success stories out there in Scotland, principally driven by institutions, by schools engaging with those institutions and by schools and organisations that can think differently. However, the financial barriers remain crippling. Students told us about the cost of housing, food and heating. One student told us in their evidence that “university feels like a risk.” For care-experienced students, that risk is even greater. Students spoke of receiving inconsistent advice and the lack of a named point of contact. They need continuity of support, not a postcode lottery. Colleges are the backbone of widening access.”