Daniel Johnson
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“When people feel threatened, they resort to violence. That is why I absolutely associate myself with the minister’s words. We must all take responsibility for our words and reflect on the current circumstances and situations.”
“We could forgive the Reform members for being inexperienced, but they have made this debate about them, so let us talk about them. I do not think that they do themselves any favours whatsoever.”
“Daniel Johnson: Were it only about the terminology that Reform is using, it would be one thing, but it is not. Let us look at some of the words used by Reform politicians, both here and in other places: calling for “cold rage”, describing our justice system as being “two tier” and describing recent migrants as being of “fighting age”.”
“Malcolm Offord opened the debate by saying that, through its motion, Reform rejects the SNP’s version of mediocrity. What was clear from the rest of his speech was that that is because he has his own very special version of mediocrity. The whole of Reform’s approach to the debate is summed up by the motion.”
“Likewise, on energy—we need to talk about what a sensible mix looks like, but, if you wrap yourself up in climate denialism, you absolutely delegitimise your argument. We do need to talk about migration. Did my party get it right when we opened up so quickly to accession countries? That should be debated.”
“Are these the politics that you want to enable and represent? [Interruption.] Thomas Kerr is laughing. If he thinks that violence in this city is funny, I am outraged— deeply outraged. He should think very carefully, because people in this city were injured.”
The complete record
Every one of 684 lines we hold for Daniel Johnson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 14.
“There is concern that there has not been greater consideration of the wider environmental impacts that the increasing use of technology can bring about. In addition, there have been calls for the establishment of a separate panel of experts to advise on Scots law and to ensure that there is representation on the United Kingdom jurisdiction task force for Scots law. We heard about international examples such as Australia, Liechtenstein and the United States, which have a much more specific focus on issues such as tokenisation. We recommend that the Scottish Government maintains a watching brief on such measures and initiatives. I note that witnesses called for a digital trust strategy to maximise the benefits between academia and industry as technology progresses.”
“Again, we suggest that clear guidance is important in that area. The bill seeks to introduce an important departure from traditional Scots law in that it would allow a person who acquires a digital asset in good faith and for value to become its owner even if the seller acted improperly. That is a departure from the long-standing principle that no one can give what they do not have. We heard that protecting good-faith acquirers could undermine consumer confidence in a sector that is already vulnerable to fraud. We have asked the Scottish Government to review protections and remedies to those affected. I will briefly mention some other critical elements that the committee heard evidence on.”
“In that way, the bill classifies digital assets as incorporeal moveable property but treats them like corporeal property for the purposes of acquisition and transfer. We heard that that could be confusing and jarring. We note the Scottish Government’s explanation that it is necessary to allow concepts such as possession and delivery to operate in a digital context. However, there are practical challenges, such as the fact that some digital assets have shared key arrangements and the fact that someone might have exclusive control of an asset but not own it due to workplace settings or other practical considerations. We note that the bill defines “control” and “exclusive control”, but we draw attention to the evidence that we heard that that might be at odds with what happens in practice.”
“Carbon credits are an example that could fall into that category, and we heard that uncertificated securities that are traded through the certificateless registry for electronic share transfer—CREST—system might be excluded for those reasons. The committee recognises that risk and we have called on the Scottish Government to consider whether exclusions are necessary and to lodge amendments at stage 2, as appropriate. A further area of scrutiny was the treatment of ownership and exclusive control. Section 3 seeks to create a presumption that the person with exclusive control of a digital asset owns it, and section 5 explains that control means being able to initiate, transfer or divest an asset entirely.”
“We debated the nature of immutability and whether, for something to be included, it has to be absolutely immutable or whether, because of the electronic nature of these assets, there is some ambiguity. We want the Government to note that and address it in guidance. Finally on this point, for something to be considered a digital asset, it must be independent of the legal system, in that it would still exist even if the legal system disappeared. Some witnesses questioned whether anything in Scotland can truly exist independently of the law, but the committee accepts that the bill’s definition provides a workable framework for lawyers and the industry. A number of witnesses stated that there should be explicit exclusions so that we do not create digital assets inadvertently.”
“Critical to the concept of something being rivalrous is the understanding that it is discrete, that it cannot be used more than once and that there is clear control over it. A car or an apple can be rivalrous in that only one person can be in control of the car or consuming the apple at a time. That is unlike electronic things such as PDF and JPEG files, which can be reproduced without the initial person’s consent or awareness. Another critical element is that, for something to be counted as a digital asset, there must be a reliable and immutable record of transactions that prevents someone else from using or transferring the asset more than once.”
“Further, the UK Government has legislated in England, Wales and Northern Ireland through the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025, and we do not wish to see gaps emerge between the different jurisdictions in the United Kingdom. The bill sets out a definition of digital assets, how they are to be treated in Scots law and how they can be acquired and transferred. It is worth taking time to go through that definition. Section 1 defines a digital asset as something that “arises from an electronic system that makes it rivalrous, and … exists independently from the legal system.” We spent a bit of time interrogating the concept of rivalrousness, which is clearly understood among the legal community even though it is only now being introduced into Scots law.”
“I also, somewhat unusually, thank the Scottish Government’s bill team—who are seated at the back of the chamber—for the considerable interest that they took as we gathered evidence. We are very appreciative of that. I do not intend to cover every recommendation in the committee’s report; instead, I will focus on the purpose of the bill, its definitions and the committee’s key observations. As the minister pointed out, the Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill is a technical but necessary piece of legislation. It arises from a gap identified by the expert reference group: the need to ensure that Scots law keeps pace with digital technology, given the significant increases in such technology, and because, unlike other jurisdictions, Scotland does not have the body of case law that might enable it to keep pace.”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am delighted that we have such a packed chamber this afternoon to debate this important topic. I emphasise that it is important for many of the reasons that the minister just set out. Just as the minister expressed his thanks in his speech, I would like to offer mine as well. I thank my fellow committee members. We all agree that this has been an interesting topic, and although we had to get our heads around a great deal of terminology and avoid going down rabbit holes, we all concluded that this was an important piece of legislation. I thank our clerks for their diligent assistance in that work, and I thank everyone who responded to our call for evidence and, indeed, those who provided oral evidence to the committee.”
“The changes that are being brought in by technology— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Johnson— Daniel Johnson: —-and demographics are important. I will close there. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you. We have some time in hand, but we need to share it around. I call Clare Haughey to open on behalf of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. 15:40”
“We note the 15 per cent rates relief that is in the budget, but that is against the background of a significant revaluation. It was useful to hear reflections from the Deputy First Minister this morning that more work needs to be done on methodology. The methodologies are far from clear and transparent, and there is an on-going question about the role of the valuation boards, which the Deputy First Minister also reflected on. As the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government mentioned, we took a good deal of evidence on skills. We reflected on the fact that there is a sense of urgency and need from many industries, and that the agenda for upskilling and reskilling cannot wait. Rather than taking years to reform Skills Development Scotland and other agencies, such reform needs to be urgently brought forward.”
“We exposed that some of those metrics are based on self-reported measures. There needs to be greater examination of that issue. Given the changing focus and scope of the enterprise agencies, we were also concerned about the “missing middle” in some areas of the economy when it comes to delivery of support by our enterprise agencies, especially for older, more mature businesses in non-high-growth sectors. Moreover, it is hugely important that we ensure that there is support from our economic agencies for people from all communities who might seek to engage in business, particularly women who are seeking to start and grow businesses. One key issue that we must highlight is that we received evidence of a huge amount of concern from businesses about rates.”
“We must also keep challenging the enterprise agencies on whether they are actually focused and taking the right approaches, given their budgets. I think that that starts with reporting. I alluded to that in my intervention on the convener of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. We did not have up-to-date annual reports from each and every one of the agencies—indeed, we struggled to get a clear articulation of how much of their budgets was being spent on running costs, compared with funds that were going out the door, so to speak. We got that information subsequently, having asked for it. For transparency, we must start with clear and consistent articulation of the fundamentals. Although the enterprise agencies do broadly similar work, they were not consistently reporting their outcomes.”
“Michelle Thomson: I was a bit slow to get up there, but I want to flip back to the Scottish National Investment Bank. It is important to note that the rules that are applied by the Treasury have now been eased off, so the SNIB can reinvest profits that are made. Daniel Johnson made a point about wider and deeper investment, but it is even wider and deeper still. Daniel Johnson: The deputy convener makes an excellent point. In a positive step, the committee wrote to the Treasury to ensure that the Scottish National Investment Bank was included in its broad review relating to capital treatment. We note that the enterprise agencies received something of a tight budget this year, which is not unique. We must consider whether that reflects our broad priorities for the economy.”
“It is welcome that we see a continued increase in capital funding towards the target of £2 billion, but that is a finite total. When we had the Scottish National Investment Bank in front of the committee, one area that we focused on was how the SNIB could achieve the status of a perpetual fund, to allow it to reinvest its capital. If we are going to see sustained and sustainable investment, and see the Scottish National Investment Bank achieve the status that we all want it to achieve, especially given the finite target, we need a vision and we need the plans to be put in place. On the enterprise agencies, we very much recognise the importance of their work. Michelle Thomson: Will the member take an intervention? Daniel Johnson: I am very happy to give way to the deputy convener.”
“We welcome the 19 per cent increase in cash terms, but that is only a 3.4 per cent growth rate over the past five years, given the changes that have occurred. Likewise, we note that, over the past five years, the total number of completions across all sectors has declined. We need to see greater focus on that perspective in the budget. More broadly, the Economy and Fair Work Committee’s priorities have focused on supporting business, women’s enterprise and skills development. I will make some comments about the enterprise agencies in a moment. One point to note is that, very often when it comes to economic discussion, the Scottish National Investment Bank is considered something of a catch-all solution to the issues in the economy that members identify.”
“Given the scope of the Economy and Fair Work Committee, and the nature of the economy, many of the things that impact the economy fall outwith the economy budget lines. We reflected on that point this morning at committee when the Deputy First Minister was in front of us. Likewise, many of the time periods in which those things will happen fall outwith a single budget year, so it is perhaps not a surprise that the Economy and Fair Work Committee has focused on the impacts beyond single budget lines and on multiyear funding. One good example of that is the housing budget, which is not just about housing; it supports jobs and helps local economies to grow. We note that the budget line has seen some changes year to year.”
“It is a great pleasure for me to speak on behalf of the Economy and Fair Work Committee. Let me use this more reflective debate to express my thanks to the clerks, and particularly to my fellow committee members. The position that I have assumed was not necessarily expected, but I am very much enjoying it. I will try to reflect broadly the contributions to the committee. Given that many of my fellow committee members are in the chamber, I invite them to intervene if they think that I could elaborate with further detail. This is a useful debate, because committees are where we should properly be thinking about fiscal sustainability. I welcome the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s innovation in that regard, although I note that its approach to budgeting for foreign travel has become somewhat looser since I left that committee.”
“Aside from the funding for the Crown Office, the budget falls short of what the committee was told was needed. I urge the finance secretary to reconsider the spending review’s funding of the priorities in the vision for justice programme and the three-year delivery plan, particularly for our police, fire and prison services. I welcome the efforts that have been made in this year’s budget settlement, but it is time to respond to the alarm bells from the justice sector, and future budget settlements must do that. 15:33”
“Restructuring what remains of it in order to meet new demands cannot obscure the uncomfortable fact that we first need to ask whether the challenges of climate change, flooding and wildfires mean that we need a larger or a different fire service, building towards funding the necessary structure. Members will be aware of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s reform process that is currently under way, the focus of which is to reconfigure the service in line with the challenges that I have mentioned. Our committee will scrutinise the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service again in February on those challenges. To conclude, we are hearing stark warnings from across the justice sector that further cuts and efficiency savings are not realistic and that new investment is needed.”
“As members will be aware, there is deep concern about the state of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, which now has a capital backlog of around £818 million. Last week, we heard about the enormous risk faced by our firefighters and their families from a lack of decontamination and showering facilities in fire stations. Many firefighters return home from their shift with hazardous particulate fire materials on their bodies and clothes. The committee is particularly concerned about lack of funding to allow the fire service to respond to the public need.”
“It is a hard nut to crack, but we will be revisiting it before the end of this parliamentary session. There may be very limited budget left to address other crucial issues, such as modernisation, maintenance of ageing prisons, digital infrastructure such as drone detection, window grills and body-worn cameras, to name but a few. Severe overcrowding in our prison estate presents a potential challenge flowing from human rights compliance, which, in turn, could increase the risks of future costs in legal proceedings or compensation. There is also the risk of unrest in our prisons, exacerbated by overcrowding and increasing harm caused by substance use. Embedding new practices arising from new legislation—for example, trauma-informed practice—further shines a light on human rights- based budgeting principles.”
“One of the concerns that is often raised with me by the police is that their capacity is very much used up by shortfalls in other public services, which mean, for example, that police officers have to attend accident and emergency departments or deal with missing persons. What lines of inquiry has the committee followed on that, what evidence has it taken and what assessment has it made of those sorts of pressures that the police face? Audrey Nicoll: I thank Daniel Johnson for his intervention. He makes the point very well. In fact, the Criminal Justice Committee has spent quite a bit of time scrutinising the impact of, for example, mental health-related incidents on policing. Last year, we were told that it was the biggest policing challenge at that time.”
“The cabinet secretary told us that she was happy to consider that model, and we have asked for her conclusions by the end of January. We hope that she will look favourably on the approach, and we greatly anticipate receiving her response. I commend the diligent and effective pre-budget work that has been carried out by committees. I move, That the Parliament notes the pre-budget scrutiny undertaken by the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and other parliamentary committees. 15:11”
“The spending review confirmed that a new £1.5 billion Scottish Government bond programme for infrastructure will launch in 2026-27 to support capital investment and diversify borrowing beyond the UK national loans fund. Our successor committee will want to keep a close eye on that to ensure value for money and the delivery of successful outcomes. During our visit to Lithuania, the committee was impressed by the country’s approach to collectively developing and implementing Lithuania 2050, which is its national vision for the future. That includes buy-in from all political parties, its Parliament, public bodies and civic society, and a parliamentary committee is monitoring progress towards achieving the agreed national vision.”
“The uplift in funding for the sector in the Scottish budget is therefore encouraging, and I look forward to hearing more about the sustainability of the further education and higher education sectors from the convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee later in the debate. On capital funding, we asked the Government to set out the steps that it will take as part of its investment delivery plan to smooth out the “lumpy” capital budget over time. The Government suggests that “through careful management of the pipeline, we can ensure a steady stream of investment in the infrastructure needed to deliver ministers’ priorities.” It also continues to explore revenue finance models to expand capacity for infrastructure investment.”
“With the UK Government’s autumn statement being four weeks later than it was in 2024, the timetable for Scottish budget scrutiny has been tighter this year. As a result, our committee agreed to carry out separate sessions on the spending review and the infrastructure delivery plan in February and March, although I expect both of those to be touched on when the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government gives evidence to the committee on Tuesday. I therefore urge the cabinet secretary to commit, in her closing speech, to providing that information on process in time to inform our spending review scrutiny. The committee previously expressed concerns regarding recent funding settlements for the college sector, given its key role in developing a skilled workforce and in growing the economy.”
“Our pre-budget report looked ahead to the Scottish spending review, which was published alongside last week’s budget. During a visit to Estonia in 2024, the committee noted the implementation of zero-based budgeting and asked Scottish ministers to reflect on how such an approach could be delivered in Scotland. We recommended that a zero-based budgeting approach should be taken to the Scottish spending review, and we requested in-depth information on the process for preparing, scrutinising and delivering that. In response, the Government said it already adopts “the principles of zero-based budgeting”, and that spending is reviewed in detail throughout the Scottish budget process. However, the Government has not provided the in-depth review process information that was requested.”
“The Government’s work in that area is welcome, including the testing of a budget- tagging method for tracking preventative spend across portfolio areas of the budget, with publication of the results planned for summer 2026. I am sure that it will benefit all committees in the next session if they can clearly see where spending on prevention is occurring and making a difference. The Government’s announcement of an extension to the invest to save fund to support portfolios, public bodies and local government to carry out reform projects is appreciated. Its response is also reassuring in confirming that projects are required to provide six-monthly reports, that outcomes are being monitored and that successes are being shared more widely across the public sector.”
“The committee is unclear from the cabinet secretary’s response whether the Government will undertake that important work, because the response pointed to a previous report, a literature review and the development of its approach to public value. On public service reform, we asked for a detailed plan on how the Government will meet its high-level targets on efficiencies and workforce, while minimising the impact on public services. We therefore welcome publication, alongside the Scottish budget, of the integrated public sector pay and workforce policy and of portfolio efficiency and reform plans. We look forward to examining those in detail. An update was sought on progress with work that had previously been asked for in considering the potential benefits, risks and costs of introducing a new preventative spend category of expenditure.”
“However, that falls short of committing to produce a full response. Common to other committees, we ask for clarity in future documents on which areas of spending are being prioritised and deprioritised. The Scottish ministers replied that they recognise the need for clarity, explaining: “Progress is being made to further improve this in our 2026-27 Scottish Budget, including clear references to how prioritised funding delivers the Scottish Government’s four priorities”. We were not convinced that the Scottish Government has provided sufficient evidence of social security sustainability, and we repeated our calls for a review of the fiscal sustainability of social security spending, asking for outcomes arising from universal payments and services to be reviewed.”
“To inform our scrutiny, we visited the advanced manufacturing innovation district Scotland—AMIDS—in Paisley, as well as Vilnius in Lithuania to hear about the excellent futures thinking approach there and about policies on economic growth. I will highlight some key findings, how they have influenced Government budgetary decisions and where commitments have not been forthcoming. One of our main recommendations was for much greater Government emphasis on longer-term financial planning to start mitigating the impact of future trends. We urge the Scottish Government to provide a full response to the SFC’s 2025 “Fiscal Sustainability Report”, repeating a previous recommendation relating to the SFC’s first such report in 2023. The Government pointed to specific actions, such as its population strategy and Scotland’s migration service.”
“In the shorter term, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government warned that “difficult choices” would be needed for the 2026-27 Scottish budget. There were challenging decisions for the United Kingdom Government in its autumn statement, too. The Office for Budget Responsibility noted that “the scale and array of risks to the UK fiscal outlook remains daunting.” In that context, and drawing on the SFC’s April 2025 “Fiscal Sustainability Report”, scrutiny was focused on responding to long-term fiscal pressures. After calling for views over the summer, we received 28 submissions, heard evidence in the autumn and published our report in October 2025.”
“The FPA committee’s pre-budget scrutiny builds on the committee’s findings over successive years regarding the Scottish Government’s lack of strategic financial planning against a backdrop of fiscal pressures, including demographic trends. Ahead of the committee’s pre-budget scrutiny this year, the Scottish Fiscal Commission said: “the Scottish Government will face significant challenges funding devolved public services in the future, particularly over the next twenty-five years … because the population in Scotland will age earlier than in the rest of the UK.” In June 2025, the medium-term financial strategy confirmed that the gap between funding and resource spending would rise to £2.6 billion by 2029-30.”
“Concerns over the clarity of Government policy feature highly in this year’s committee reports, with many requesting further work to be carried out to evidence the impact and sustainability of policies such as a growing social security budget. Other reports suggest that overlapping strategies, timelines and documents can hinder effective scrutiny. Across portfolios, committees are looking at whether prioritisation is clearly stated, justified and aligned with the Government’s stated objectives. More information is needed on the trade-offs between the spend that the Government is choosing to protect and the impact that that has on other funding areas. I note that the subjects of skills, climate change and social security have frequently been raised.”
“Does Kenneth Gibson agree that, when it comes to transparency, it is not all about complicated stuff? Some of it is about simplicity and getting agencies to report on the same basis; some of it is about getting them to report in a timely manner. Our committee was faced with a situation in which some of the agencies that we were scrutinising had not yet published their annual report, for example. Does he agree that, on transparency, we need to get the basics right as well as addressing the complexity? Kenneth Gibson: I completely agree with Daniel Johnson. That is very important. Some issues relating to the budget were even raised yesterday at our committee’s evidence session; no doubt some will also be raised at next Tuesday’s meeting.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what the new infrastructure delivery pipeline means for a replacement eye hospital for Edinburgh. (S6O- 05400)”
“I am out of time. The bill is a missed opportunity. That is not to say that it will not have benefits, but, because of that missed opportunity and because of the lack of clarity, the Scottish Labour Party cannot support the bill tonight. 20:20”
“There was a really important discussion about regional structures, which was the subject of a central recommendation from Withers, but there is nothing in the bill on how we can deliver regional approaches, despite the fact that they clearly deliver flexibility. Nor is there any sense of how we can have microcredentials or skills passports, which are also features of the flexible system that we want. Above all else, the biggest fear is that we have a lack of clear industry voices in the system. It is hard to reach any conclusion other than that industry voices will be diluted by the measures that we see in the bill. With just two seats on the Scottish Funding Council—in a body that has a remit far broader than simply to deal with skills—it is difficult to see how industry will be able to shape, lead and take forward the skills agenda.”
“One of my fundamental issues is that this Government has an extremely poor track record of delivering structural reform, particularly in the absence of any clear strategy. To see that, we only need to look at the college sector. Many of our problems have arisen because of the poorly executed reform of our colleges, which has again been due to a lack of clarity. There is an insistence on full-time courses rather than part-time courses, yet, when we look at the economic needs that we have in front of us, we can see that flexible part-time courses are the training and skills provision that many employers are crying out for. The bill does not even touch on many of the elements that Withers set out.”
“Those are the urgent priorities that are in front of us. We need clarity about skills funding, which is static, despite money being received through the skills levy. The bill will do nothing to increase transparency for the employers or sectors that are looking for information on how those funds are being delivered. We have had cuts to the few measures, such as the workforce development fund, that have provided the flexibility beyond the apprenticeship system that is so valued by business. Furthermore, we have seen a gutting of the colleges’ ability to undertake anything that looks like flexibility. There have been cutbacks to the provision in the credit system, which is far too inflexible and does not enable colleges to deliver the flexibility that is needed. However, it is not just that the Government has been slow and unclear.”
“We will not know whether the bill has succeeded because we do not have that clarity from the Government. How do we know that the structures in the bill are right? How do we know that the form of organisation will enable delivery? Let us be clear that we need change. Trade bodies and individual businesses have set out that a number of changes should be made, and we need urgent change, but that is the last thing that this Government is doing. It is 10 years since the enterprise and skills review that started much of this work off, it is three since the Withers review, and it is going to take another three years for the bill to be fully implemented. It is all taking far too long. The Government would do well to listen to the voices of those who have clear views about how flexibility, upskilling and reskilling can be implemented now.”
“The advantage of a stage 3 debate happening immediately after the stage 3 amendment process is that none of the arguments will be entirely new, and the fundamental point that I have been making this afternoon and this evening is that structural reform that is embarked on without clarity about what is sought or to be achieved and without strategy has risks, at least, and can be damaging, at worst. To put it the other way round, I note that the minister said in his opening remarks that he hopes that the reforms will bring about the changes in the skills system that we all want to see, but we do not know what those are. We do not know what success looks like, and we do not know what the skills and apprenticeship systems will look like or feel like or what difference will be made as a result of the reforms.”
“I reiterate my thanks to the Minister for Higher and Further Education for the way that he has approached the bill, which has been very useful. There has been clear engagement, and I can see some differences between the bill that we have in front of us and the one that he first examined. Likewise, I do not think that the bill is without merit. There is strong sense in bringing funding streams together so that money can be used more flexibly. However, we cannot support the bill as it is.”
“I have thought about that issue very carefully since taking up post, and the firm conclusion that I have reached—and it is the strong position of the Government—is that we can do both, and that we must do both. I accept that not every member will agree with every provision in the bill, but I hope that we can all recognise the care with which the bill has been developed, the evidence on which it is based and the genuine efforts that have been made to listen and respond to concerns during the whole process.”
“Fiona challenged us all to do more on that vital issue, and I thank her and Pam Gosal MSP, who supported her, for doing so. The amendment that was passed at stage 3, and which we worked on together, goes as far as we can to prevent such violence in the future, and I hope that it achieves its purpose. Stage 3 is, of course, the point at which Parliament must decide whether the bill provides the right framework for the reform that so many agreed is needed. I know that views differ on whether the focus of the bill should have been to strengthen how our education and skills system is currently constructed or to undertake structural reform.”
“However, I can say that there has been significant engagement between the Scottish Government, Skills Development Scotland and the Scottish Funding Council on engaging with staff, and that will continue at pace through the bill’s implementation. All staff involved and their professionalism and their commitment have helped build the system that we have today, and they will all be central to delivering the change that we need in the years ahead. Speaking of stakeholders, I want to take a moment to commend Fiona Drouet for seeing the opportunity presented by the bill to further her EmilyTest campaign and ensure that no family has to experience the loss of a child attending college or university as a result of gender-based violence.”
“It is good to hear the minister’s thanks to Skills Development Scotland, but will he acknowledge that the Scottish Government left those working for Skills Development Scotland essentially in limbo for two years while it decided what it was going to do with the Withers report? That is an entirely unsatisfactory set of circumstances, and I hope that the Scottish Government never again repeats it and leaves people, an agency and jobs in limbo in that manner. Ben Macpherson: I appreciate the member’s point. That is not my understanding of the situation, but, of course, I was not the minister during that period.”
“Although I appreciate that a version of it was offered as a handout amendment, we could not take that because of the inherent flaw in the Government’s approach. When the minister winds up, I ask him to acknowledge that we are 10 years on from the enterprise and skills review. At the heart of the issues that Audit Scotland found was a lack of strategic direction and clarity about how systems should work together.”
“I thank the minister for his constructive engagement on the strategy; we had several interesting conversations about its critical nature. I emphasise that, although I welcome amendment 10 and although Labour will support it, there is an issue that is necessary to address. It is interesting that people have so many questions, because the fundamental issue with the bill is that no such strategy currently exists. The problem with the approach that has been taken towards the bill is that, without the strategy, we cannot be clear about whether the structure is right. It will always be problematic to have a structure before we are clear about the strategy. I am grateful for amendment 10.”