Liam McArthur
Scottish Liberal Democrats · Scotland
“I associate myself very much with the comments and requests of Kristopher Leask. This weekend sees the second Water Sound bluegrass festival take place in Burray, in my Orkney constituency. I therefore ask the cabinet secretary to offer congratulations to the organisers, Pete and Gail McAndrew, for getting the festival up and running.”
“I think that he said that it is taking place this weekend, in which case I hope that the weather holds up, as that could add something very special to a bluegrass festival.”
“I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of her statement, which obviously comes on the back of eye-watering rises in business rates earlier this year.”
“I have a constituent who, for the past nine years, has desperately sought treatment for swelling on his legs and groin that has progressively worsened and is now profoundly incapacitating. Having sought treatment in Scotland, it is clear that that is not available.”
“Jenny Gilruth: The Liberal Democrats engaged with us throughout the budget process last year and they were able to extract a number of things from the Government. I hope that other Opposition parties will learn from their good behaviour.”
“There are strengths in the current system but I accept that there are inherent challenges in relation to the issues presented by revaluation, for example, and the wider challenges that businesses are facing.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,163 lines we hold for Liam McArthur, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 15 of 24.
“They do not want to bump into that person in a supermarket, in the street, at the end of the road or standing on a train station platform. I am not making up those scenarios—they are real experiences that were relayed to the Criminal Justice Committee as it took evidence. Those things happen at the moment. Victim Support Scotland told me that only 2 per cent of victims—2 per cent—were notified when hundreds of perpetrators were released under the Government’s early release scheme last year. It is simply not good enough for people to be told after the release has occurred, and my amendment 85 would go some way towards ensuring that that is not the case. Siobhian Brown: We all want the same thing for the VNS in future. Mr Greene, when you consulted on your proposed— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please speak through the chair.”
“It is, and always has been, my view that it should be the case that victims are told before, and not after, a prisoner’s release. It is inconceivable that people who have opted to receive that information and are entitled to receive it under the 2003 act are getting the information and discovering that someone has been released after the event has happened, and even more so when, as we know, this Parliament has passed legislation in the past couple of years to allow early or emergency release. I understand the associated practicalities and the fact that there will be a need for work by whichever body is responsible for distributing the information, but it must happen. It is absolutely paramount that victims are told before someone is released.”
“Subsection (3) of the section that my amendment 85 seeks to insert in the bill says that “as soon as reasonably practicable after any decision is made”— that is, after the Parole Board has made a decision about someone’s release—the victim must receive information on the board’s decision “whether or not to recommend or direct the release of a person” and “whether the person released is to comply with conditions”, because we know that conditions are often attached to parole decisions. My amendment goes on to say that the victim must be informed “where the person is to be released” and, more importantly, that that must happen “before the date of that release”. I go so far as to say that that change to the 2003 act should not be necessary.”
“My amendment would not change any of that and would not change the information provided to a victim, but it is explicit in saying that a victim should receive that information prior to the offender being released. Section 17 of the 2003 act sets out the information that a victim is entitled to following decisions made by the Parole Board. The second part of my amendment 85 therefore clarifies the parameters of the information that a person would receive.”
“I will speak on amendment 85, which deals with the information that a victim would receive prior to someone’s release either as part of the parole process or after their time in prison has been served. Amendment 85 essentially says that the victim must be informed of a prisoner’s release date prior to that prisoner being released, unless it is not practical to do so. At the moment, section 16 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 sets out all the information that a victim is entitled to receive about the release of an offender. Most importantly, it entitles them to information about the date of the convicted person’s release.”
“As we have discussed a great deal already today, the current VNS scheme is simply not fit for purpose. I understand that the Government acknowledges that, as do other stakeholders, and I hope to see some meaningful reform to the scheme post the passage of this legislation. The bill cannot be the first or last step in improving the entire end-to-end process for how victims are notified, what they are told and when they are told it. As part of today’s deliberations, we are trying to improve that, and as the debate on the previous group of amendments demonstrated, there is cross-party support for such changes even when there is not Government support.”
“Amendment 82 delivers a recommendation from the independent review on the information available under the compulsion order and restriction order VNS that will enable victims registered for the CORO VNS to receive information about an appeal against recall being lodged and about the outcome of such an appeal. Amendment 161, in the name of the cabinet secretary, makes changes to the long title of the bill to reflect the amendments in my name in this group. I am sure that the Parliament shares my ambitions for VNS reform, so I urge members to support my amendments in this group, and I ask Mr Greene not to move his amendment. I move amendment 66. Jamie Greene: I will keep my comments solely to my amendment in this group, as there are a number of amendments in the group.”
“Amendments 73 and 74 are technical amendments that build on provisions that were agreed to at stage 2. Amendment 74 will enable the Scottish ministers to make regulations that impose a duty to co-operate with ministers for the purpose of the VNS on other persons, thereby future proofing the scheme in case of expansion. We will consult before progressing such regulations. Amendment 74 will also facilitate better access to information for victims where a cross-border transfer occurs by ensuring that the Scottish ministers can co-operate with other relevant persons. Amendments 73 and 75 make consequential changes to stage 2 amendments.”
“First, it amends existing order-making powers for the VNS so that they can be used to make a wider range of changes to the information available under the scheme than is possible under the current powers, thereby ensuring greater flexibility. Secondly, it responds to the VNS review’s recommendation that victims should be able to be told of each occasion of temporary release from prison where that might bring the offender into close proximity with the victim. Engagement with stakeholders indicated that there was a range of conflicting views on the recommendation, so we are taking the power now to enable future changes to be made by way of secondary legislation. That will give us the opportunity to consult on the issues and build a consensus with stakeholders on the way forward.”
“That will make it easier for victims to exercise their rights once a transfer is taking place, including transfers into Scotland. Amendments 70 and 80 will enable victims to be advised of the jurisdiction to which the offender in their case is being transferred, unless that is not in the interests of justice. That is a crucial change that will help to provide victims with peace of mind. Amendment 71 will enable the Scottish ministers to provide victims with information ancillary to the core information that they receive under the VNS in order to provide flexibility and more meaningful information for victims. Amendment 72 has two main parts.”
“Always speak through the chair. Siobhian Brown: The child’s best interests will be at the heart of how decisions are made and whether child victims will be able to join the VNS in their own right. We recognise that, in some cases, those decisions will be finely balanced, especially with regard to age. However, I make it clear that we will seek to accommodate a child’s wishes as far as possible. Amendments 69 and 95 make provision to enable victims to nominate a person to receive information at the same time as, or instead of, the victim, which is also a recommendation from the VNS review. Amendments 70 and 77 to 81 collectively deliver key improvements to victims’ rights where a cross- border transfer of an offender or patient takes place, in line with the recommendation from the independent review.”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-18795, in the name of Kate Forbes, on supporting Scottish exports in response to global uncertainty. 15:27”
“I assure Mr McArthur and other members that the needs of SME house builders have been a very important consideration for me and my team as we have developed our housing emergency response. It has been informed by collaboration with them and it will continue to be.”
“Màiri McAllan: As housing secretary, I will remain in on-going contact with SME house builders, as I will with other representatives in the sector, because it is very much in my interest to understand the barriers as they see them and to seek to overcome them. Aspects of the plan that I set out last week intended to do exactly that, not least in respect of planning and my clear expectation of proportionality in the treatment of SMEs. Mr McArthur is right that not only is supporting our SME house builders important in and of itself, but it also supports the development of much- needed housing in rural and island Scotland, where we know that SME house builders have an important part to play.”
“It is no real surprise that, in recent years, 100 per cent of houses in Orkney have been SME built. Although it is clear that SME firms across the country face challenges of the sort that Michelle Thomson alluded to—including, ironically, the availability of housing for those working in the sector—there are specific barriers for those that are operating in island communities, with increased development costs, a one-size-fits-all approach to planning requirements and a lack of sufficient funding to take forward key projects. The cabinet secretary has helpfully committed to visit Orkney to meet those involved in housing development in the islands. Ahead of that visit, will she commit to looking at what further tailored support might be made available for small house builders to address the concerns that they have raised?”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament acknowledges the efforts of the Scottish Youth Parliament’s Transport, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee to remove barriers to young people accessing public transport; notes the view that public transport should be affordable, accessible and reliable for young people across Scotland, including in the Lothian region; further notes the view that particular action should be taken for young people in rural and island communities who, it considers, currently benefit less from the Young Persons’ (Under 22s) Free Bus Travel scheme due to limited bus services and infrastructure in their areas; recognises what it sees as the benefits that affordable, accessible and reliable public transport have for young people’s access to social, educational, youth work and employment opportunities, and notes the support for further action to be taken to improve young people’s access to public transport.”
“The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-17147, in the name of Sarah Boyack, on the Scottish Youth Parliament’s work on transport. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-18780, in the name of Craig Hoy, on the impact of accommodating asylum seekers on Scottish local government. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I advise members that we are, as expected, quite tight for time. I call Craig Hoy to speak to and move the motion—up to seven minutes, please, Mr Hoy. 16:01”
“The first item of business is portfolio question time, and the first portfolio is rural affairs, land reform and islands. I advise members that, across the afternoon, we are incredibly tight for time, so I make the usual plea for brevity in questions and responses. I will do my best to get in as many supplementary questions as I can. It is unlikely that I will get them all in, but I will do my best. Scottish Ocean Cluster 1.”
“When it is determined that a bill requires a financial resolution, no proceedings may be taken on the bill at any stage after stage 1 unless the Parliament has, by resolution, agreed to a financial resolution. I hope that that clarification is helpful. Portfolio Question Time Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands 14:01”
“Good afternoon. Before we begin this afternoon’s business, I note that I undertook to respond to the point of order that Mr Whitfield made at the end of the members’ business debate last night. I have had time to reflect on his point of order, and I will advise Mr Whitfield and other members accordingly. A bill must, on its introduction, be accompanied by a financial memorandum that sets out best estimates of the costs, savings and changes to revenues to which the bill’s provisions would give rise. The rules on a financial memorandum do not require it to include comment on the merits or otherwise of the bill’s provisions—that information is included in the bill’s policy memorandum. As Mr Whitfield will be aware, although the matters are interlinked, standing orders make separate provision on financial resolutions.”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament recognises what it sees as the outstanding contribution of Scotland’s residential outdoor education centres, including PGL Dalguise in the Mid Scotland and Fife region, in developing key life skills for young people, including confidence, independence, teamwork and resilience; considers that the will of the Parliament has been expressed on the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill, with a majority of MSPs, including those representing all political parties, agreeing to the general principles at stage 1 on 27 March 2025; notes that the Scottish Government must lodge a financial resolution by 26 September 2025 or the Bill falls; further notes that the Member in Charge of the Bill has produced a series of policy proposals and associated costings for consideration by the Scottish Government that, it believes, would mean the Bill would cost significantly less; understands that the Scottish Government is yet to provide a view on any of these policy proposals and that it is yet to identify at what level of cost it considers the Bill would become “affordable” to enable a financial resolution to be lodged; further understands that the Scottish Government has not produced financial modelling with associated draft amendments on any proposals on affordability despite what it considers a commitment from the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise when appearing before the Education, Children and Young People Committee to share draft amendments with the Member in Charge by the start of July 2025; notes the calls by members from all political parties, the outdoor education sector, and children and young people from across Scotland for the Bill to proceed to stage 2 for further scrutiny, and further notes the associated calls for a financial resolution to be lodged.”
“The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-18576, in the name of Liz Smith, on celebrating residential outdoor education for young people. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-18763, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on 20 years of Scotland’s railway providing a strong platform for the future. 15:09”
“The next item of business is a statement by Maree Todd on drug-related deaths in Scotland in 2024 and the national mission to reduce deaths and improve the lives of people who are impacted by drugs. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. 14:58”
“The next item of business is portfolio questions, and the portfolio is climate action and energy, and transport. I invite members who wish to ask a supplementary question to press their request-to-speak buttons during the relevant question. Question 1 has not been lodged. Data Centres (Support) 2.”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament recognises the impact of chronic kidney disease (CKD) on individuals and the NHS, with, it understands, thousands of people reliant on dialysis or living with a kidney transplant, and many more at risk of progression; understands that CKD is one of the most common and resource-intensive long-term conditions but considers that it lacks a specific policy focus; welcomes the Scottish Government’s work on a long-term conditions strategy and notes the belief that the Scottish Government should include CKD as a dedicated strand, with actions on prevention, early diagnosis, equitable access to transplantation, and a home-first approach to dialysis care; notes the view that increasing support for home dialysis and improving organ donation rates would improve outcomes and reduce system pressures, and further notes the belief that the Scottish Government should work with people across Scotland, including in the Cunninghame North constituency, who are living with kidney disease, as well as clinicians, third sector organisations and industry, to deliver meaningful change.”
“The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-18369, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on recognising the impact of chronic kidney disease. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I encourage members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I invite Kenneth Gibson to open the debate.”
“The next item of business is a statement by John Swinney on the situation in Gaza. The First Minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. 14:52”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament notes Strathclyde Partnership for Transport’s (SPT) proposals to develop bus franchising arrangements for the region and its recent consultation on how to create more affordable, reliable and environmentally sustainable bus services in Strathclyde; further notes the calls for SPT to proceed with the most ambitious approach to franchising, and for the Scottish Government to work constructively with SPT to make this possible; welcomes the report from Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC), The Next Stop: The Case for Publicly Owned Buses in Scotland; notes that it argues that moving local buses into public ownership would have a positive impact for local communities, allow local authorities to plan routes and cap fares, and return revenues to the public sector; understands that Scotland’s only publicly owned bus company, Lothian Buses, has returned a dividend of £36 million to its local authority shareholders over the last decade; congratulates Get Glasgow Moving on its continued campaigning work on this issue, and notes the calls for the Scottish Government to further commit to support the expansion of publicly owned bus services and deliver high quality, affordable and reliable bus services, integrated ticketing and higher standards of service across the SPT region and beyond.”
“The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-17910, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on the future of Glasgow’s bus services. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. Members who wish to participate in the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons now.”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-18075, in the name of Richard Leonard—sorry, Richard Lochhead; we need the summer recess—on a legislative consent motion on the Employment Rights Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation. I invite the minister to speak to and move the motion. 15:51”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-18080, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on a legislative consent motion on the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation. Again, I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons. 15:30”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-18076, in the name of Kaukab Stewart, on the legislative consent motion for the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons. 15:05”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament notes with concern the reported changes to the approach taken for granting licences to control gulls in recent years by NatureScot, which, it understands, has led to fewer licences being approved, as demonstrated by 2,041 licences being granted in 2023, but this figure falling to 505 in 2024; understands that communities and businesses in Moray, Nairn and Inverness have had significant problems with gulls in recent years, but that many communities across Scotland also experience similar problems; believes that Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) funding and Common Good Funds should not have to be spent on continually seeking licences to control gulls that display dangerous and aggressive behaviour that are a risk to all, but particularly the young and older people; is concerned that NatureScot reportedly does not fully acknowledge and respect the views of local people and businesses when considering applications to control gulls that are causing significant problems; notes the calls for more robust action from the Scottish Government and NatureScot to protect humans and businesses from what it sees as the menace of dangerous gulls, including the Scottish Ministers taking action through a section 11 order under the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991, and further notes the calls for a review by the Scottish Government, preceded by a public consultation on the grounds for legal control, with a view to permitting control to tackle significant nuisance caused by gulls, and on the separation of the licensing of control measures and the nature species conservancy functions of NatureScot, in light of reports of an inherent potential conflict between the two and widespread concerns of many constituents that NatureScot neglects the former while preferring the latter.”
“I ask those who are leaving the public gallery to do so as quickly and quietly as possible as we move to the next item of business, which is a members’ business debate in the name of Douglas Ross on motion S6M-17969, on action to address the impact of gulls in Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite Douglas Ross to speak for about seven minutes in opening the debate.”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-18059, in the name of Jenny Gilruth, on the Education (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible. I appeal to members who are leaving the chamber to do so quickly and, almost more importantly, quietly. I call on the cabinet secretary to speak to and to move the motion. 19:57”
“The vote is closed. Gordon MacDonald: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect to the system again, but I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I will ensure that that is recorded,”
“On amendment 88, I do not think that such limiting appointment times for a chief executive would be beneficial, because that would mean that consistent leadership of the body could not be provided. I note that amendment 88 would prevent a chief executive from being reappointed even if their initial term had been far shorter than seven years. Therefore, I urge members to reject Mr Kerr’s amendments if they are moved. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Ross Greer to wind up and to press or seek to withdraw amendment 281. Ross Greer: I have nothing further to add, other than to say that I press amendment 281. Amendment 281 agreed to. Amendment 282 moved—[Ross Greer]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 282 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“Let us give qualifications Scotland the leadership that it needs, and let us give Scotland’s learners the leadership that they deserve. Jenny Gilruth: I thank Mr Greer and Mr Kerr for setting out the purposes of their respective amendments in the group. I support all of Mr Greer’s amendments, and I thank him and his office for their helpful engagement on his chief examiner provisions. I do not feel that I need to say more than that. Mr Kerr’s amendments 86 to 88 are the same as amendments that he lodged at stage 2. For the same reasons that I set out back in April, I cannot support them. Amendments 86 and 87 would duplicate existing frameworks for ensuring that those appointed to public office have the necessary skills and experience.”
“I have said this before, and I am afraid that I am going to say it again: in Scottish education, culture is the challenge that underpins every other challenge. My amendments are about setting the tone at the top, because the tone at the top matters. Culture transformation must be led from the top by leaders who are committed to it. No single section in a bill can create or change a culture, but what the Parliament can do today is set the conditions for a transformative culture of empowerment and accountability to be inculcated. We can say that expertise matters, that leadership must be earned, that accountability is not optional and that our national education bodies must serve the public, not themselves. I urge members across the chamber to support amendments 86 to 88.”
“A non-renewable term ensures independence, frees the postholder from the temptation—real or perceived—to appease ministers or stakeholders in the hope of reappointment, allows for courageous leadership and avoids the risks of inertia and complacency that can emerge when leadership becomes entrenched. That model mirrors best practice elsewhere. Senior regulatory roles across the United Kingdom, including His Majesty’s Chief Inspector at the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills in England, are subject to fixed terms for precisely those reasons. I am not proposing something radical; I am proposing that we align with the established norms of public accountability. That brings me back to the heart of the proposals: culture.”
“It is not enough for a chief executive to be qualified; they must also lead by example. They must model the values of openness, accountability and transparency. They must demonstrate a willingness to engage— actively and sincerely—with learners, educators, employers and the wider public. The decisions taken by qualifications Scotland must be visible, justifiable and fair. That should mean publishing data, owning outcomes and creating systems of appeal and complaint that are not only available but respected. Those qualities are not luxuries; they form the bedrock of public confidence. 19:15 Amendment 88 would introduce a fixed, non- renewable term of seven years for the chief executive. This reform is rooted in good governance.”
“The process should not be about ticking boxes; instead, it should be about ensuring that the person who will wield real influence over our qualifications system will possess actual, relevant experience; that they understand education not just in theory but in practice; that they have led, and not just administered; and that they know what it means to manage complexity, navigate public trust and act with the probity that public service demands. Amendment 86 makes it plain that only someone who is fit and proper, and who brings experience in education, qualification regulation or public sector governance, should be appointed. That bar is neither exclusionary nor arbitrary; it is proportionate and necessary. Amendment 87 articulates the qualities and expectations of that leadership.”
“Professor Muir concluded that reform must start with leadership that is credible, grounded in real educational understanding and guided by values, not bureaucracy. He warned of “a serious gap between the national bodies and the experience of teachers and learners”, and called for those leading public education institutions to demonstrate lived insight and a genuine connection to the classroom. That is what my amendments aim to deliver. Amendment 86 sets clear and principled eligibility requirements for the appointment of the chief executive of qualifications Scotland.”
“The brightest and best ideas will fall foul of a bad culture. My amendments are about embedding leadership that understands education, values transparency and is committed to the highest ethical standards. Let us be in no doubt: one of the most persistent criticisms that was levelled at the SQA was that it had become insular, defensive and opaque. It operated in ways that were often perceived as remote from learners, disconnected from teachers and resistant to scrutiny. The Hayward review, which was commissioned to look at the future of qualifications and assessment in Scotland, identified deep concerns about trust and the need for openness and better engagement with stakeholders. The Muir review was even more direct.”
“On a number of occasions, the people who have been making the most important decisions about the qualifications system have just not had practical, hands-on experience of delivering education, whether in Scotland or elsewhere. Amendment 287 is simply consequential to amendment 283. I move amendment 281. Stephen Kerr: Amendments 286 to 288, in my name, seek to do something that I think is essential and overdue: to ensure that qualifications Scotland, the successor body to the SQA, is led with the professionalism, integrity and public accountability that Scotland’s learners and teachers deserve. My amendments are all about safeguarding culture. I think that it was the late, great Peter Drucker who coined the phrase “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” Therefore, we neglect the importance of strategy at our peril.”
“I remind members that, in yesterday’s debate, we debated provisions that would see qualifications Scotland have a chief examiner with a line of accountability to the expert group on qualifications standards, and a chief accreditation officer accountable to the accreditation committee. Therefore, through these amendments, we would build in robust governance at both ends of the process. Amendment 286 provides that the chief examiner should have “suitable experience of working in the education, training, qualifications or skills development sector.” That requirement might sound relatively broad, but the amendment still makes it clear that the chief examiner should perform as an educator. It addresses what has been one of the structural weaknesses in the organisation up until now.”
“Through previous amendments, we have already established that there would be a chief accreditation officer as well as a chief executive. Amendment 281 would add a chief examiner to the staff. Amendment 283 would require the chief examiner “to be appointed by Qualifications Scotland to undertake such role relating to Qualifications Scotland’s functions set out under sections 2 and 3”— that is, the awarding and quality assurance functions. It would also require the chief examiner’s role to include “responding to ... advice ... provided ... by the Expert Group on Qualifications Standards”.”
“Amendment 279 agreed to. Amendment 85 moved—[Jenny Gilruth]—and agreed to. Amendment 280 moved—[Pam Duncan- Glancy]—and agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to group 22, which is entitled “Qualifications Scotland staff: chief examiner and chief executive”. Amendment 281, in the name of Ross Greer, is grouped with amendments 283, 86 to 88, 286 and 287. Ross Greer: I will be quite brief in speaking to my amendments in this group. Quite a lot of their contents were covered when we debated group 2 on accreditation, because of the relationship between the two groups, but I will provide members with a quick recap. Amendment 281 would require qualifications Scotland to have, as a member of staff, a chief examiner.”