Annabelle Ewing
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“Before we turn to the next item of business, I hope that members do not mind if I say a few words. I would like to say specifically what an honour it has been for me to serve in the Scottish Parliament, which, of course, was reconvened by my late mother, Winnie Ewing, in 1999.”
“There is one question to be put as a result of today’s business. The question is, that motion S6M-21180, in the name of John Swinney, on a motion of thanks, be agreed to.”
“I hope that members feel that I have discharged my duty. I thank you for having given me the opportunity to be your Deputy Presiding Officer, along with Mr McArthur, and I wish each of you all the very best.”
“Members! Màiri McAllan: Equally, the prospect of scrapping the land and buildings transaction tax or stamp duty land tax is for the birds, and I am afraid that it demonstrates that the Conservatives realise that their chances of implementing any such policies are, to put it politely, very slim.”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament recognises the importance of sport and activity as a force for good that goes beyond just physical health; considers that they have a significant impact on mental health, as well as contributing to community and national cohesion and wellbeing; believes that sport breaks down barriers of colour, race, r…”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament notes with concern the reported decision by the Lloyds Banking Group to close 11 Bank of Scotland branches between June and July 2026, including the Rutherglen branch; understands that this is the latest in a series of bank closures across the UK; believes that these closures will have a significant imp…”
The complete record
Every one of 792 lines we hold for Annabelle Ewing, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 16.
“Those things are ministers’ responsibilities—I acknowledge that they rest on the shoulders of ministers—in the discharge of their duties with regard to the education system, and the performance of education in Scotland. That is why I struggle with that idea. I seek to press amendment 11, but I give advance notice that, if that is unsuccessful, I will not be pressing any of the other amendments in the group. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 11 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.”
“I struggle with the idea that, somehow, I would be creating some kind of anomalous role because, at the end of the day, the Auditor General and Audit Scotland act independently across a widespread range of different activities that involve public funds, with the Auditor General regularly appearing before the Public Audit Committee. I struggle to understand why, in his role of helping us as parliamentarians to scrutinise the work of the Government, the chief inspector of education would be any different in that respect. We will come on to discuss reports in a future group, but the chief inspector would be providing this Parliament with information that would allow us to carry out fuller and deeper scrutiny of the very things that the cabinet secretary says that my amendments seek to hinder.”
“That would prevent the recruitment of inspectors from taking place in advance of a new inspection plan being agreed, even when a draft plan had received unanimous support. I am sure that members will agree that that would not be a desirable outcome and it is important that ministers should be able to respond to the staffing needs of the inspectorate. On that basis, I cannot support amendment 198 and I would ask members to reject it. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Stephen Kerr to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 11. Stephen Kerr: First, I am grateful to all who have contributed to the debate on this group. I was particularly impressed that so many SNP MSPs were listening to my final comments in my opening speech. There must have been a triggering word in there somewhere—I will have to try and find out what it was.”
“He would also, no doubt inadvertently, be removing a safeguard that applies before an inspector may enter a person’s private dwelling. I strongly encourage members to resist those amendments. Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 198 seeks to restrict the ability of ministers to determine the number of inspectors that are to be appointed. It does so, however, in a way that would introduce ambiguity. For example, it is unclear what the formulation of “in consultation with” means, rather than the more usual phrase, “following consultation with”. Her amendment might be taken to suggest that agreement from both would be required. Furthermore, the recruitment of inspectors would be linked to what is set out in the inspection plan.”
“Mr Kerr’s amendments 31, 32 and 36 would remove the definition of “excepted establishment” from the bill. As we rehearsed at stage 2, that would be problematic because, taken together, those amendments would routinely bring post-16 further education colleges and the higher education institutions that deliver accredited initial teacher education into the scope of the chief inspector’s duty to secure inspection. That would cause potential duplication and confusion, because it would cut across the statutory roles of the SFC and the General Teaching Council for Scotland. Therefore, I encourage members to resist those amendments. On Mr Kerr’s amendments 55 and 56, on the powers of entry and inspection, I understand that his intention is to remove ministerial influence on the inspectorate.”
“As members will be aware, ministers have statutory duties that they must fulfil relating to education, including the duty to endeavour to secure improvements in the quality of school education. I believe that many of Mr Kerr’s amendments are inappropriate, as they would prevent, or significantly hinder, the ability of ministers to fulfil those duties. I urge members to resist Mr Kerr’s amendments 20 and 21, on the ability of ministers to secure inspections; amendments 43 and 44, on the inspection plan; amendments 57 to 73, on removing the role of ministers in enforcement directions; amendment 95, which would remove the ministerial power to appoint someone to deputise for the chief inspector; and amendment 23, on the ministerial power to specify the frequency of inspection.”
“In opposing that approach, I am mindful of the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s recommendation regarding the need for a moratorium on SPCB-supported bodies. The position has been powerfully reinforced by the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee’s report, which was published just last week. In addition, Mr Kerr’s proposed model would not allow HM inspectors of education to continue to be civil servants, which was one of Professor Ken Muir’s key recommendations, as the model that is proposed in the bill would do. Transferring staff out of the civil service would have significant implications, including for the terms and conditions of their employment. Therefore, I cannot support the amendments. I turn to Mr Kerr’s other amendments in the group.”
“If we are going to do that in the Parliament, the Parliament is not the place to govern elements of education; it is the place to hold the executive to account for its responsibility to the people of Scotland and to Scotland’s young people in particular to have an education system that is fit for the purpose for which it is intended, which is to give us all a better future. Jenny Gilruth: At stage 2, I set out that the model for the chief inspector, as provided for in the bill, follows previous successful models for other HM inspectorates in Scotland. Mr Kerr’s amendments 11 to 16, 33, 34, 90, 93, 94, 49, 50, 54 and 89 seek to replace that model with one in which ministers have no role and the chief inspector is, instead, supported by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.”
“there can be no liberty.” He continued: “there is no liberty” if the powers of the judiciary are not ”separated from the legislative and executive ... There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body ... to exercise those three powers”. Although I would question the gendered wording of a quote from so long ago, if we bring the responsibility to govern and oversee into the legislature, we would fundamentally challenge the purpose of the Parliament. I am deeply afraid that Mr Kerr’s amendments go too far by placing the responsibility on the Parliament’s committees. The member has spoken on a number of occasions about committees’ obligations to oversee, review and hold the Government to account.”
“To group them, there is a set that wishes to involve the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and a set that wishes to bestow responsibilities on a committee of the Parliament. With the greatest respect to Mr Kerr, who has lodged the amendments, I think that we need to take the separation of power one step higher. I pose no challenge to the point about the independence of various inspectors, departments and organisations in the education sector, but I question the route that he proposes to take to achieve their independence. 20:00 I go back to 1748 and the prescient words of Montesquieu. He said: “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body ...”
“Amendment 198 would not allow the chief inspector to decide alone how many staff they need. It would allow the chief inspector to influence the Government’s direction on that, and that is crucial, so that the inspectorate can do its job backed up with the resources that are required to do it properly. Martin Whitfield: It is a pleasure to speak in this group. To echo Mr Kerr’s earlier contribution, I am profoundly disappointed that I will be unable to support most of his amendments in the group. He has talked about the profound importance of the bill and of education to the future of Scotland and its people. This is a seminal moment, certainly in this session of Parliament, with regard to an education bill. Mr Kerr has talked about the separation of powers, which is where I am challenged by the amendments that he has lodged.”
“If an inspectorate is to provide rigorous assurance and credible improvement advice, it must have capacity aligned to its programme of work, rather than a head count that is fixed in advance. The duty that amendment 198 would create is modest. It would oblige ministers to listen and consider, not to rubber stamp, but it would be a safeguard. It would prevent a scenario in which the inspectorate’s statutory plan says one thing while its people power, which is set elsewhere, makes delivering that plan impossible. There are a number of amendments in the group in the name of Mr Kerr, and my colleague Martin Whitfield will speak further to those. For various reasons, we are unable to support all of them, but we can support Mr Kerr’s amendment 21. Credibility absolutely depends on capability.”
“I move amendment 11. Pam Duncan-Glancy: For an inspectorate to command confidence, it must be not only independent in law but adequately resourced in practice. Amendment 198 would secure that practical independence. At present, the bill leaves the total number of inspectors wholly at the discretion of ministers. Amendment 198 would require ministers, when deciding on that number, to do two things. First, they would have to consult the chief inspector. Secondly, they would have to take account of the workload that is set out in the chief inspector’s annual inspection plan. That would mean that staffing follows need, not convenience. The principle mirrors the evidence that we heard at stage 1 and in Professor Muir’s review.”
“They uphold the principle that, although ministers govern, it is Parliament that scrutinises, and the chief inspector must be an instrument of that scrutiny and not a subordinate arm of Government. Trust in public institutions begins with how they are structured. The amendments would bring structure, independence and clarity to a role that has been for far too long clouded by compromise. We cannot legislate for trust, but we can legislate for independence, integrity and scrutiny that answers not to ministers but to the Scottish Parliament. I ask members to support my amendments in the group. Let us make inspection in Scotland not only credible but constitutionally sound. I urge members from across the chamber to support the full package of amendments and, in doing so, to affirm that independence is not optional; it is essential.”
“I am sure that many of us meet regularly with teachers, and too many teachers have lost faith in the system because they feel that inspection is too cosy with Government and too far removed from professional realities. My amendments in the group are not about punishing ministers; they are about building confidence. They are about making sure that scrutiny is real, not symbolic. They are about ensuring that, if something is going wrong in a school, the chief inspector can say so without fear or favour and without asking for permission. To leave the bill unamended is to leave ambiguity in place, and ambiguity is where complacency takes root. The lesson of Education Scotland is that proximity to power blunts scrutiny. We must not repeat the mistake. The amendments in this group do not weaken democracy; they seek to strengthen it.”
“The need for greater assurance that national aspirations were being delivered for all children and young people was clearly evident in discussions with the OECD review team.” It also said that Scotland should “develop strategic distance from other organisations and agencies supporting schools that gives stakeholders, the public and the political system confidence in its independence and rigour.” It went further, saying: “As a national agency, an Inspectorate is a key policy tool for consistency and comparability across federated or devolved systems.” It went on to report that other countries—Ireland, the Netherlands and New Zealand—have endowed their inspectorates with “statutory independence”. Scotland must do the same, and half measures will not suffice. We need to be honest in our conversations.”
“Amendment 58 sets out clearly when the chief inspector may issue reports identifying that action is required by a school or authority, triggering a statutory requirement for follow-up. Amendment 63 defines relevant persons for those actions as the education authority or managers of the grant- aided school. That legal clarity would ensure that accountability is always directed to the correct party, not to ministers. The OECD report that I have referenced a few times this afternoon, which was commissioned by the Scottish Government itself, delivered a sobering verdict. On page 126, the OECD concluded: “The Inspectorate is currently part of Education Scotland.”
“Parliament, not ministers, must be the ultimate recipient of inspection findings. Amendment 36 would enhance the chief inspector’s inspection plan by requiring that it sets out the frequency of inspections across all relevant educational settings, creating certainty and transparency. Several amendments—amendments 43, 44, 49, 50, and 54 to 57—would remove requirements for reports, plans or actions to be submitted to or approved by the Scottish ministers. For example, amendments 55 and 56 would remove the need to obtain ministerial permission before entering dwellings during inspections, as I referenced earlier. Amendment 57 would delete section 46, which allows referrals to ministers for “necessary improvements”—those are the words—which, again, is a function that should be independent.”
“That exclusion makes no sense if we are to adopt a coherent system of oversight across all parts of our education system. Amendment 32 would remove the power of Scottish ministers to modify definitions of what the chief inspector may inspect. Those powers, if left in, would allow ministers to quietly limit or expand the inspector’s remit at will. That is a recipe for opaque policy making, not transparent accountability. Ministers may think, “This doesn’t apply to us; we wouldn’t behave in such an unseemly way”, but we are creating legislation that is supposed to last, to stand the test of time, and to stand the changes of Government that, inevitably, are coming our way. Amendments 33 and 34 would make it clear that the chief inspector reports to a committee of the Scottish Parliament with education in its remit. That is essential.”
“Amendment 21 would preserve the ability of ministers to request inspections when concerns are raised, but leave the decision where it belongs—with the independent judgment of the chief inspector. That is the balance that we need. Amendment 21 recognises that Scottish ministers may receive serious concerns about specific schools and it would allow them to request an inspection, but, critically, it would not oblige the chief inspector to act on such a request. That balance is important. Ministers may raise the alarm, but only the chief inspector should decide whether to act. That would keep the operational judgment where it belongs—independent of political interference. Amendment 31 would remove the bill’s definition of “excepted establishment”, which currently excludes colleges and teacher training institutions from inspection.”
“Amendment 89 would remove the legal ambiguity that renders the inspector’s independence meaningless. The subsection that states that the role is “subject to any contrary provision in this or any other enactment” is a loophole large enough to drive a ministerial motorcade through, and it must go. That subsection undermines the entire purpose of statutory independence. By removing it, we would establish that independence is not conditional; it is foundational. Amendments 20 and 23 would eliminate residual clauses that allow ministerial direction of how the chief inspector carries out their functions. Some would ask, “Should ministers not have any role?” The answer is clearly that yes, they should; however, that role must be defined as influence, not control.”
“This suite of amendments delivers the clarity and constitutional strength that we require. The First Minister: Will Mr Kerr provide Parliament with evidence to substantiate his comments? Stephen Kerr: I am very happy to do so in the form of a very simple fact, which is that many of our schools were not even inspected—some have not been for more than a decade. This is about creating an independent inspectorate that is prepared to take on the difficult and challenging task of speaking truth to power. Amendments 11 to 16 and 90, 93 and 94 would transfer key powers of appointment and oversight from ministers to the parliamentary corporation, ensuring that the chief inspector is not beholden to Government patronage. That is consistent with the principles applied to other independent office- holders, such as the Auditor General.”
“Although it creates a new chief inspector, it retains too many mechanisms of ministerial control, such as powers over appointment, remit, publication and referral, and even the ability to grant or deny entry into a home during inspection, and the public has noticed. In recent years, inspection reports have been sanitised, delayed or quietly buried. Teachers know that, and parents suspect it. Everyone understands that the inspectorate has become too close to Government, too cautious and too curated. After Covid-19, when robust independence scrutiny was most needed, it was conspicuously absent. Reports minimised the scale of learning loss and downplayed the extent of behavioural decline. That is not what the public expects of independent evaluation. When scrutiny becomes service and challenge becomes choreography, we all lose.”
“Credibility, integrity and trust are dependent on such independence. That is what Ken Muir wrote in his report. It is not a nice-to- have; it is a constitutional necessity. The chief inspector must not be a creature of the Government. The office must be immune from ministerial direction and clearly accountable to Parliament, not to ministers. The independence of the inspectorate is not an optional extra; it is a constitutional necessity. We do not allow ministers to edit Audit Scotland’s findings. We do not permit them to dictate the conclusions of the Scottish Information Commissioner, and we must not let them control the chief inspector of education. The role must be recast as an independent statutory office-holder, reporting directly to Parliament and protected from political interference. The bill as introduced contains a fatal flaw.”
“Although I will not read out the number of each of the amendments, I will speak to the cohesive vision that they are intended to deliver. We are all aware of the need for a cultural transformation in Scottish education, but cultural change needs structural support. No structure matters more than the one that is charged with shining a light on how our schools are performing. Let me be clear: in no mature parliamentary democracy should the executive be able to direct, suppress or amend the findings of its own inspectorate. That is not scrutiny; it is subordination. It is not accountability; it is capture. I quote the Muir report once again. It says that a new inspectorate body must be independent of Government and be able to evaluate performance across the education system without political interference.”
“I will not take the chamber through each of them line by line—I can sense how disappointed members are; perhaps I will change my mind if they are so disappointed—but it is essential to set out clearly the principles that underpin them. The amendments go to the heart of one of the most important issues in Scottish education and in the bill, namely the independence of the chief inspector of education. At stage 2, my colleague Sue Webber rightly lodged many similar amendments. I am bringing them back at stage 3 because the cause of genuine accountability, rigorous scrutiny and institutional integrity demands nothing less. The issue is not administrative housekeeping but a matter of democratic integrity. The amendments go to the heart of the constitutional architecture that underpins trust, scrutiny and accountability in public life.”
“I draw members’ attention to the procedural information on the amendments: amendment 13 pre-empts amendment 198; amendment 20 pre- empts amendment 201 in group 14; amendment 23 pre-empts amendment 24 in group 14; amendment 23 pre-empts amendment 25 in group 13; amendment 23 pre-empts amendment 26 in group 14; amendment 32 pre-empts amendment 205 in group 15; amendment 36 is pre-empted by amendment 229 in group 14; amendment 43 pre- empts amendment 239 in group 16; and amendment 43 pre-empts amendment 240 in group 16. I call Stephen Kerr to move amendment 11 and speak to all amendments in the group. Stephen Kerr: This group contains more than 40 amendments.”
“Amendment 193 disagreed to. Amendments 194 to 196 not moved. 19:45 Section 27—Deputy Chief Inspector of Education in Scotland The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 12 is on independence of the chief inspector. Amendment 11, in the name of Stephen Kerr, is grouped with amendments 12, 13, 198, 14 to 16, 20 to 23, 31 to 34, 36, 43, 44, 49, 50, 54 to 73, 89, 90 and 93 to 95.”
“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) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) 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 69, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 6 disagreed to. Amendments 7 to 10 and 180 to 192 not moved. Amendment 193 moved—[Douglas Ross]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 193 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. Pam Duncan-Glancy: On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. My app did not look like it had refreshed. It says that I did not vote but I think that I did, and I voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you. Your vote will be recorded.”
“For Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) 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) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) 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) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Golden, Maurice (North East 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) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (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, 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) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) 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) 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) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) 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) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 22, Against 94, Abstentions 0.”
“However, I do not think that money is a reason to reject completely the importance of doing so, and the potential benefit that it could bring. I reassure members that, although I will press amendment 6 as the lead amendment, if it is not agreed to, I will not move all the other amendments, so I will not keep us in the chamber all night discussing each and every amendment on curriculum Scotland. I remind members that there will be two other options for accreditation that we will consider at a further point in our discussions. On that note, I press amendment 6. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“However, I remind members that I am making the proposal not simply because we think that another body should be set up, but because the existing body could be reformed in such a way that would give it independence from Government, which Ken Muir suggested would be appropriate for the body that leads the curriculum in Scotland. In so doing, we could move staffing resources to a body that had independence from Government to enable it to deliver the curriculum that young people across Scotland need, while at the same time providing an opportunity to find somewhere for the accreditation function to sit, still within the education landscape but outwith the qualifications body. At stage 2, and throughout the debate, the cabinet secretary herself has said a few times that if she had the money, she might have wanted to create another body.”
“Although I appreciate the intention behind the amendments, I cannot support them. I do not believe that there are sufficient advantages to establishing a new stand-alone curriculum body in legislation—with the expense that that would incur—when we already have a national education agency that is being refocused on curriculum improvement and supporting implementation across the system. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Pam Duncan-Glancy to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 6. Pam Duncan-Glancy: I understand the sentiments of members across the chamber, but I stress that I have not taken the decision to lodge these amendments lightly at all. We on the Labour benches understand the implications of suggesting that another body should be set up.”
“My decision to refocus Education Scotland, which I announced to Parliament via a Government- initiated question in June last year, was a fundamental step in realising our shared ambitions for education reform. As members will know, the curriculum improvement cycle is under way, and Education Scotland is successfully leading that work with the teaching profession. In considering these amendments, I have given thought to the principle of legislating only when necessary, and I ask members to keep that at the forefront of their minds when voting on them. Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments would establish a new body corporate called curriculum Scotland; set out its functions, which, as discussed in group 2, would include accreditation and regulation; and require the transfer of Education Scotland’s staff and property to it.”
“Interestingly, the OECD, in its 2021 report on “Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence”, said that the landscape in Scottish education is highly complex and at times lacking in clarity and coherence. It also warned that creating new institutions risked compounding the complexity unless roles are very clearly articulated and co-ordinated. Although I understand the motives for lodging the amendments and applaud the intention behind them, I suggest that the creation of such a body at stage 3 of a bill would not be particularly sound. The proposal should have been put forward long ago, and we could then have considered it properly and appropriately. Jenny Gilruth: I thank Ms Duncan-Glancy for explaining the purpose of her amendments.”
“He said: “Scotland has a high number of national bodies with specific interests in components of the education system. Where comparable nations may have only one or two organisations, Scotland has many more with what are perceived to be overlapping roles and responsibilities. Students, parents and carers sometimes also perceive the current qualifications environment as being cluttered, with competing qualifications and organisations across multiple levels.” We must take Professor Muir’s report at face value; we must take his warning seriously. More bodies would probably mean more complexity, more risk of duplication, confusion and more bureaucracy.”
“I have every sympathy for where Pam Duncan- Glancy is coming from in relation to Education Scotland, because I am one of many people in the chamber who question the value of everything that Education Scotland is supposed to be doing but that it is not doing. I want to acknowledge the sincerity of the intention behind the proposals. The idea of bringing coherence, purpose and greater accountability to curriculum governance are all worthy things; I share those goals. However, creating an additional statutory body is not the right solution. As Pam Duncan-Glancy alludes to, we have been warned repeatedly by credible independent voices that the landscape of national agencies in Scottish education is already too cluttered, too confusing and too inefficient. Professor Ken Muir issued a stark warning in his report.”
“Parliament can either commission another study of a problem that everyone already recognises or it can solve that problem tonight by supporting amendments in my name that give effect to some of the other aspects of education reform that the Government has not sought to address, and deliver independence of scrutiny for the accreditation and regulation of qualifications. I move amendment 6, and invite members to support the full package of amendments in my name. Stephen Kerr: I am sorry to disappoint Pam Duncan-Glancy, but I rise to speak against her amendments. Although I understand fully what her intentions are, I do not think that her approach is the right way to go about creating yet another public body in Scotland.”
“This is not the neatest opportunity to do that, but it is the only opportunity that we have. The Government did not do that in its reform bill, and it did not give effect to that part of the recommendations. As a result, we know that the Government had little answer to the question on independent scrutiny of qualifications. It is not a neat solution, but it is a solution—and it is one of three solutions that I have offered to Parliament today. I would like to have the member’s support for that, and I hope that he can see it in himself to support the other opportunities that our amendments present.”
“Could we have Mr Briggs’s microphone? Miles Briggs: My card was not in the console— a schoolboy error. Members: Oh! Miles Briggs: It has been a long day. I admire what the member has tried to achieve, but does she not accept that a stand-alone bill would be needed to set up a new organisation? We cannot add it on to this bill. That is why we cannot support the amendments. Pam Duncan-Glancy: I have been assured by others that all the functions and associated aspects of setting up the organisation are included, such as moving staff as and where necessary, and ensuring that trade unions are absolutely front and centre; moving finances; and creating committees on organisational capacity and governance to make sure that all the reporting functions that we have discussed for the other bodies in the bill and elsewhere are part of that.”
“Although the cabinet secretary says that I have not listened, it is the Government that has not listened to the experts, pupils, parents and teachers across Scotland, who want us to deliver proper reform in education today. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy to please indicate whether she is pressing or withdrawing amendment 98. Pam Duncan-Glancy: I press amendment 98. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 98 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. As this is the first division of stage 3, I will suspend for about five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system. 16:57 Meeting suspended. 17:04 On resuming— The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the division on amendment 98. The vote is closed.”
“I made it clear on the record, during the committee’s deliberations, why that fact does not prevent the conclusion that we have to separate the scrutiny function from the body that delivers qualifications—that still stands. If the member is suggesting that the committee and its investigations were so flawed, perhaps he may consider that the bill needs to return to the committee. I urge members to reject a simple review and to support reform by moving the accreditation function out of the Scottish Qualifications Authority or the new qualifications Scotland. Several options are on the table from various members across the chamber. I point to amendment 200, in my name, which talks about a review of the scope of accreditation, which would provide the orderly change that Willie Rennie talked about.”
“Willie Rennie: At the start of the process, did Pam Duncan-Glancy know that accreditation does not cover school qualifications? Did she understand that? She did not make that clear at all. I have taken a lot of criticism today but, ultimately, the committee did not do its job properly at the early stages to have proper consideration that would ensure that reform would be done in an orderly fashion. We need to make sure that we do responsible things in the Parliament. What has been proposed by Opposition members today is not an orderly reform. We need to have orderly reform for the sake of the new qualifications Scotland and our examination system. Pam Duncan-Glancy: I did know that the accreditation function does not cover school- based qualifications.”
“We listened to experts and took much evidence and information on board. The committee’s report was pretty clear on the fact that we listened to the evidence of experts, and it said exactly what had to happen. It is for the Government of the day, with the resources of the Government of the day, to make good on any commitment and to say, “Okay—we need to come to an arrangement that everyone can support.” That has not happened. Ross Greer said that we now have to take the next big decision, as he called it, and that his amendments would allow us to take that decision. The next big decision would be to support proper reform and to reject the Government’s amendments and those in the names of Willie Rennie and Ross Greer.”
“I see that Willie Rennie’s and Ross Greer’s heads are down, but it was for all Opposition parties to create a situation in which the Government had to bring forward reform. We have seen a weak version of that today, and I commend Pam Duncan-Glancy for the amount of work that she has done to try to get the Government to see sense. Pam Duncan-Glancy: Many members, including Miles Briggs, have done a lot of work on the legislation, because, as I said in my previous remarks, there is nothing more important than getting this right for Scotland’s children. I turn to comments from Ross Greer. I note with much respect that he says that it was the fault of everybody—the Government and the committee— that we got to this point. The Government has the machinery of government. The committee was doing the best job that it could.”
“Labour and the Conservatives are jointly objecting to that, because they were not able to come forward with solutions and work with the Government. However, I listened and responded to an ask of the committee and, today, we have the solution on the table. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I hope that we are moving to the denouement, Ms Duncan- Glancy. Pam Duncan-Glancy: I am getting there, Presiding Officer. That characterisation is not what happened. The cabinet secretary knows fine well that, because there were difficulties with amendments, she asked every one of us not to press ours and she agreed not to press hers. Miles Briggs: It feels as though the Opposition parties are trying to lead the Government to a solution, but the Government is finding deliberate terms not to support that.”
“I agree that we absolutely have to do it in an orderly way, but the way in which the Government’s bill has progressed could not have been more disorderly. We have no order for how we are going to move the function, and the cabinet secretary’s only option at stage 2 was to say, “Right, nobody press anything—I’ll work with you again, and we’ll try to get this right, because I recognise that we haven’t done the work on it.” Yet here we are at stage 3, with the Government not progressing any reform to the current situation. Jenny Gilruth: I remind Ms Duncan-Glancy that the committee asked me not to press amendments so that we could come together on a solution. I responded by doing so. We have been able to reach a solution by working on a cross-party basis with two parties.”
“I see some front-bench members shaking their heads, but the quality of the higher history qualification was determined by the body that delivered it. That is not about accreditation but about quality assurance. The only mechanism for that type of quality assurance right now rests with the body that delivers and designs the qualification. That is an unacceptable situation and, at some point, that function has to move out of the body. Countless amendments that Parliament faces today could have done that. My amendment 200, which we will discuss later—we can all look forward to that—is about having the role of a chief regulator and looking at scope and function. In the meantime, we suggest moving the accreditation function in order to separate the functions. Willie Rennie spoke a couple of times about the need to do that in an orderly way.”
“That cannot continue, so we have to look at a means of separating out that function. Jenny Gilruth: The member has suggested that the quality assurance function in relation to higher history was the challenge. She knows—and we have heard today—that the accreditation function does not apply to any school-based qualifications in Scotland. Therefore, it was not the cause of the higher history challenges. Pam Duncan-Glancy: The cabinet secretary knows that I acknowledged that, but what I said was that those qualifications are not yet accredited. That question might be addressed in the future scope, and it should, indeed, have been addressed if the Government had had its eye on the ball and its finger on the pulse and if it had done the job in the first place, but that did not happen.”