Jenny Gilruth
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“I thank Pam Gosal for bringing this debate to Parliament and for sponsoring the recent round-table discussion on the topic, which I was pleased to attend, along with colleagues from across the Parliament. There is now a growing consensus on the issue.”
“Back in 2024, the Government published updated national guidance in which I was clear that any headteacher would have my full backing as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills should they see fit to implement a ban, but that decision was ultimately left to headteachers’ discretion.”
“As a result of Parliament’s close scrutiny, I believe that we have produced a stronger bill that is consistent with the initial intentions behind it.”
“I thank Daniel Johnson for his commitment in bringing forward the legislation on restraint and seclusion that is before us today. I applaud his approach to working with the Government and I encourage more such good behaviour in the coming parliamentary session.”
“The Education, Children and Young People Committee’s stage 1 report and members’ speeches in the stage 1 debate highlighted clear support for the bill’s general principles.”
“That principle, which underpinned the national guidance that was issued in 2024, remains central today. The Scottish Government’s original intention was to conclude the review of our 2024 guidance before determining whether legislation was required.”
The complete record
Every one of 653 lines we hold for Jenny Gilruth, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 14.
“I look forward to our engagements next week. First Minister’s Question Time 12:01 Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill 1.”
“When will that happen? Jenny Gilruth: I thank Mr Rennie for his interest. He will be aware of my engagement with him and with the university’s leadership and the Scottish Funding Council throughout the summer recess. We will meet again next week. We are working at pace with the SFC and the university, but it is for the university to come back with an alternative approach. We expect to receive that alternative approach next Monday. I have committed to meeting Mr Rennie and colleagues from across the affected region next week, along with the Scottish Funding Council. It is imperative that we find an approach for Dundee university that has the buy-in of the wider university community, including staff and students—they are fundamental to that—and, of course, the approach must have the backing of the court, leading with a clear mandate.”
“Since my statement to the Parliament in June, I have visited the university and held several meetings with the university’s leadership and the Scottish Funding Council, and I have also engaged with trade unions and local MSPs, including Mr Rennie. My officials are holding weekly trilateral meetings with the SFC and the university. A university recovery plan was submitted to the SFC in August, and the SFC wrote to the university a week later with an alternative approach. All parties are now urgently working towards an agreed way forward that will ensure a long-term managed recovery. Willie Rennie: Ministers continue to say that the situation is urgent, but we are almost a year on from when we first discovered the depths of the problem at the University of Dundee. We need a sustainable recovery plan for the university.”
“The Presiding Officer: The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for that, after which we will move on to the next item of business. I would be grateful if members who wish to put a question were to press their request-to-speak buttons now.”
“When it occurs, it requires an immediately escalated response. If a child’s behaviour poses a risk of harm to themselves or others, staff need to respond very quickly. Supporting and empowering our teachers to do that has been a central part of my approach in the development of our national action plan. The national guidance was written by, with and for our teachers—the very teachers to whom we entrust the education of our children and young people every day. The national action plan provides that shared vision, with a consistent approach that provides a strong platform on which to act. I remain committed to delivering on that ambition. Scotland’s schools must be safe, positive and inclusive spaces for learning, for every teacher and member of staff and, crucially, for all our children and young people.”
“All MSPs and parties carry a responsibility to support Scotland’s children and young people in our schools and the school staff who work hard to support their outcomes and life chances. In April last year, I met the Opposition party leaders to talk to them about the development of the national action plan. I am also keen to visit a school with Opposition spokespeople so that, together, we can observe the impact in practice of the national behaviour action plan. I am absolutely delighted that St Brendan’s primary school has agreed to host such a visit. My private office will be in touch in due course to arrange a mutually convenient time for us all to attend a visit that I think will be really worth while. There is no place for violence or abuse by anyone, of anyone, about anything, in our schools.”
“Changing behaviours requires support, which is why we have put in place extra funding for training and support staff. Additionally, during this financial year, we have provided a further £29 million to recruit and retain staff to support children and young people with additional support needs, and we have increased funding to £186.5 million to help councils to maintain teacher numbers. The national action plan, as members know, is a three-year plan. The next steps will focus on working with local councils to improve the consistency of recording and monitoring incidents, update our national guidance on exclusions, publish whole-school approaches to addressing racism and racist incidents in schools, and improve attendance, on which I will launch our national marketing campaign in the coming week.”
“Over the past two weeks alone, more than 350 staff attended a webinar on the consequences guidance, and a further 169 attended a session on the new risk assessment update. However, the publication of the consequences guidance reflects only the latest progress in delivering our national action plan. Last year, alongside the national action plan, we published clear national guidance on mobile phones, anti- bullying measures and responding to racism and racist incidents. That is in addition to action on preventing gender-based violence in schools through the gender-based violence framework. That work has been further strengthened by the launch of the digital discourse initiative, a resource that supports teachers to challenge online hate and disinformation, which we know is disproportionately impacting women and girls in our schools.”
“The risk assessment guidance also contains a range of examples from schools across Scotland, which staff can use and adapt for their own context. Although risk assessments should be used only in the most severe cases, where there is a foreseeable risk of harm or a pattern of behaviour causing concern, they are an important tool for ensuring that appropriate strategies are in place to support a young person and to support schools to keep everyone safe. We also need to support implementation in our schools, which is why Education Scotland has produced new online practical resources on relationships and behaviour. A programme of professional learning is being delivered between now and December, including bespoke sessions on the new guidance.”
“The consequences that are provided for in the guidance are therefore drawn from practice that is recognised as effective by the professionals whom we trust to work in our schools every day. Those people are the experts in what works. The NASUWT has welcomed the publication of the guidance, saying that it is “an important step forward in our continued focus on driving down levels of disruption and violence in our schools.” The consequences guidance was published alongside an update on risk assessments, to support schools in dealing with violent and aggressive behaviour. New guidance on risk assessments gives support to staff to identify and assess risk associated with a young person’s behaviour and to plan the actions that might be taken to control or mitigate that risk.”
“It is underpinned by reflective questions and illustrative examples of consequences that can be used to support schools’ decision making. It is important that the guidance was overseen by the Scottish advisory group on relationships and behaviour in schools—also known as SAGRABIS—which includes representatives from local government, the teaching trade unions, parents’ representatives, educational psychologists, speech and language therapists and violence prevention experts. Crucially, the guidance was created by an experienced group of practitioners, which includes current headteachers, members of our teaching trade unions and educational psychologists.”
“It is clear that relationships and behaviour in our schools have changed following the pandemic. Lockdown impacted on the understanding of expectations, and there is a need for all members of the school community—staff, young people and parents—to work together to reset that relationship. Our teachers cannot do that on their own. The consequences guidance reinforces the principles of prevention and de-escalation, which underpin our approach to relationships and behaviour in schools. The guidance seeks to ensure that everyone in a school community understands the boundaries and expectations for behaviour and the processes for when things go wrong. It emphasises the importance of taking the action that is required in the moment to ensure a safe and respectful learning environment.”
“Parents at St Brendan’s trusted teachers to take the necessary steps that were appropriate to the situation to keep their children safe, and, in so doing, to allow them to learn. The thoughtful practice that was exhibited by staff at St Brendan’s primary school, under the watchful leadership of the headteacher, Maura Oates, can be found in schools all over Scotland today. The approaches that are used by staff at St Brendan’s reflect the intent and purpose behind the national guidance, which has had direct input from teachers. Consequences are an essential part of a supportive learning environment. Setting boundaries for children and young people supports their development and, crucially, helps them to feel safe. Indeed, that mirrors good parenting advice and practice.”
“During the launch of the consequences guidance at St Brendan’s primary school in Motherwell, I was impressed by how readily children who were as young as eight could articulate the processes for resolving conflict. Pupils spoke confidently about their responsibility to try to resolve disputes themselves in the first instance before asking for help from peer mediators and then, if they were still struggling, seeking the support of a trusted adult. The parents I spoke to at St Brendan’s understood that their children are still developing and that within every school, irrespective of its strengths, there will, at times, be challenges. However, what parents really valued at St Brendan’s was the headteacher’s consistent communication about what was being done when problems arose and how they, as parents, were being supported.”
“At times, as is the case here in the chamber, keeping everyone engaged and attentive can be challenging. Disruption happens, depending on the class, the time of day and proximity to the end of term. Our teachers use a variety of tools to maintain order every day. Sometimes, a tone of voice or a stern look is sufficient to help someone get back on track. Sometimes, a reminder of expectations of behaviour and agreed practices is required to stop matters from escalating. Occasionally, greater action is required, including time out of class or, as a last resort, exclusion. In my experience, what is needed always depends on the situation and on the young person.”
“For context, the majority of school staff reported generally good behaviour by most or all pupils. We all have a responsibility, as MSPs, not to seek to demonise a generation of young people and must all remember that those are the young people who lived through a global pandemic. However, we must prevent violence and aggression and must also address the issues that school staff identified as having the greatest overall negative impact: talking out of turn, hindering other pupils from getting on with their work, and the inappropriate use of mobile phones. That is the evidence base that has informed the national guidance on consequences. Teachers—because of their aptitude, knowledge, skills and pedagogy—know how to get the best from our young people and how to manage and support them.”
“In May, I updated Parliament on progress to deliver the national action plan on behaviour and relationships in schools, which was published last August. At that time, I committed to updating Parliament following the publication of new guidance on consequences, and my statement today fulfils that commitment. Almost 4,000 school staff from all over Scotland participated in the “Behaviour in Scottish Schools” report, which was published in November 2023. That research captured the challenges in our schools, particularly following the pandemic, highlighting trends of worsening behaviour, challenges with communication in some of our youngest pupils and a worrying increase in misogyny. However, it would be too easy to paint a relentlessly negative picture of school life in Scotland.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted no. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Gilruth. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, cabinet secretary. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“That is why, as I said in my answer to the previous question, the Government prioritised £29 million of additional funding in the 2025-26 budget for local and national programmes to support the recruitment, retention and training of the ASN workforce. College Funding (Business Needs) 8.”
“It is worth recounting that, under the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, all teachers have a role in meeting the additional support needs of their pupils, including those with visual impairments. In addition, specialist teachers who are qualified teachers of children and young people with visual impairments work collaboratively with colleagues in mainstream education settings to meet the individual learning goals of pupils with visual impairments. In 2023- 24, 90.2 per cent of mainstream secondary school leavers receiving support for a visual impairment were in a positive destination nine months after leaving school. To answer the member’s substantive point, we recognise that the increase in the number of pupils with visual impairments presents challenges for schools.”
“Michelle Thomson: The most recent census data shows that the number of pupils who are recorded as having a vision impairment has doubled since 2011. At the same time, the number of qualified teachers of children and young people with vision impairment has not increased sufficiently, and additional concerns have been expressed about the ageing profile of the workforce. What action is the Scottish Government taking to address the specialist teacher recruitment and training shortage, to ensure that blind and partially sighted pupils continue to receive the quality education that is necessary to reach positive destinations and to narrow the attainment gap with their fully sighted peers? Jenny Gilruth: I thank Michelle Thomson for raising a hugely important issue.”
“The Requirements for Teachers (Scotland) Regulations 2005 require education authorities to ensure that teachers who are employed to teach hearing and visually impaired pupils hold an appropriate qualification. Work is under way with partners to update the qualifications guidance. That will ensure that education authorities and teaching professionals have clear, up-to-date information on the appropriate qualifications that are required to support pupils effectively, enhancing the proficiency of this specialist area of the workforce. The Scottish Government also funds the Scottish Sensory Centre and CALL Scotland to provide advice and training to school staff, including in the use of assistive technology for pupils with specific and/or complex communication and sensory needs.”
“To Mr Macpherson’s substantive point, I note that we are beginning to work with partners across local government to better understand the range of approaches that our councils are taking to implement those statutory duties. We are working through an improvement lens, which has been identifying the opportunities to strengthen existing approaches across local authorities. I am more than happy to ask my officials to engage with the City of Edinburgh Council on the issue that Mr Macpherson has raised today.”
“Jenny Gilruth: I thank Mr Macpherson for raising what is a hugely important issue. He rightly puts on the record the increase that we have seen in recent years in the number of pupils with an identified additional support need. Part of that relates to the broader definitions that we, as a Government, have taken forward for good reason, but I recognise the implications that that has for support. On local authorities’ responsibility, there is a duty on local authorities, under section 27 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, to provide out-of- school care “as is appropriate” for children in need. That provision might be subject to assessment, but the question whether out-of- school care is appropriate for a child’s particular strengths and needs is a matter for the local authority.”
“As the Parliament is aware, there has been a notable rise, in recent years, in the number of children identified as having additional support needs. It is my understanding that councils have a statutory duty under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 to provide out-of-school and holiday care for children with disabilities and additional support needs. However, a number of parents in my constituency and elsewhere have raised concerns with me that the level of provision that is available is inadequate to meet their children’s needs. That concern is especially pressing as we approach the school summer holidays. Councillor Euan Hyslop has been raising the issue with the City of Edinburgh Council administration. Will the cabinet secretary say a bit more about how she is considering the issue nationally and engaging with councils at this time?”
“We have published a series of national evaluations on the impact of school holiday activities and childcare. The evaluations show positive impacts for children and their families, including improved confidence and skills development. Reports highlight that it is important for services to be inclusive and delivered by staff with the right skills and experience. I very much recognise that more needs to be done to improve the experiences of disabled children and those with additional support needs. That is why we have invested an additional £1 million this financial year to support the delivery of holiday play schemes and activity provision for disabled children. Ben Macpherson: I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. It is good to hear about the evaluations and investment.”
“That has been a key theme of the amendments that we have discussed today and yesterday. I also thank the wide range of stakeholders from across our education system who have engaged with the committee and with me throughout the bill process. They have been instrumental in informing our deliberations. Given that the bill provides the scaffolding that supports the wider range of education reforms, it has been vitally important to get its provisions right, and I think that we have arrived at that point today. Through the creation of a new qualifications body and an independent inspectorate, the bill enables a more responsive, trusted and effective national education infrastructure.”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to address the chamber this evening on the Education (Scotland) Bill, following our lengthy and detailed sessions yesterday and today. Before I turn to the content of the bill, I thank members for the constructive way in which they have engaged with me as we have sought to improve the bill. That includes around 16 hours of detailed and thoughtful deliberation on amendments with the Education, Children and Young People Committee at stage 2, the many discussions that I have held with members ahead of stage 3, and the open dialogue that I have had with members as we have sought to find common ground. Members have been clear in their desire for change and about the need to rebuild confidence and trust in our public bodies.”
“I am grateful for what I think is a positive response from the cabinet secretary and that she has taken on board the principles that underpin at least some of my amendments. I press amendment 29. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. As it is the first division on the bill this afternoon, I will suspend the meeting for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system. 16:38 Meeting suspended. 16:42 On resuming— The Deputy Presiding Officer: We will proceed with the division on amendment 29. The vote is closed.”
“On that basis, and with the addition of the category of registered teachers and college teaching staff in Mr Kerr’s amendment 236, I believe that it is unnecessary to include the additional provision in the bill. With regards to Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 240, I think that it is important that we make it clear that ministers do not have to consult every person who is considered to be representative of a group. Therefore, with her support, I have lodged amendment 240A to adjust the wording, and I urge members to support both amendments. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Stephen Kerr to wind up, and to press or withdraw amendment 29. Stephen Kerr: I do not have any further comments to make.”
“I am happy to support amendment 236 as I believe that it represents the best way to address Mr Kerr’s general concern about this group of amendments, which is to ensure that teachers and college staff are suitably involved in inspection design. I am also happy to support Mr Greer’s amendments 234 and 239, which would refine important consultation duties that were inserted at stage 2. On amendment 235, I hope to reassure Ms Duncan-Glancy that the section currently provides that the chief inspector must consult with such other persons as they consider appropriate and so would suitably catch those whose interests are not the interests of educational establishments.”
“I would argue that the bill has put measures in place to build a collaborative approach. I have spoken about, for example, the consultation process with the advisory council and other groups in the preparation of the inspection plan. My view is that the bill as currently drafted makes provision in that regard. I accept the member’s point about culture and the way that teachers in particular experience inspections. Although I do not agree with Mr Kerr’s amendments, there is one exception, which is amendment 236. It would require the chief inspector, when preparing the inspection plan, to consult with such persons who are representative of registered teachers and college teaching staff, as the chief inspector considers appropriate.”
“The amendment would further create a presumption that the chief inspector will accept any recommendations that are made by consultees regarding the design of inspections. Even if recommendations were wholly inappropriate for inspections and did not accord with the views of the rest of the consultees, the chief inspector would be required to provide a written response, which would take up their time unduly—time that could be better used to undertake inspections. Stephen Kerr: How can we change the cultural outlook that the profession most often has on the inspection process? If we do not engage with teachers and there is not a collaborative approach to inspections, how can the culture around them change? Jenny Gilruth: Mr Kerr and I debated that at length at stage 2.”
“However, I support using the views of stakeholders to help to inform the overall approach to inspections. Indeed, the bill as currently drafted will enable that by way of consultation with the advisory council and other groups in the preparation of the inspection plan. However, for individual inspections, I believe that the manner in which that inspection is conducted should be a matter for the chief inspector. We would not want a situation to arise whereby a school is able to avoid inspection of an area of risk or weakness by removing it from the inspection remit through the co-design process. Mr Kerr’s amendment 30 would require the design of inspections to be reviewed every year, in consultation with a considerable number of interested persons, even when all parties are content that the model of inspection is working well.”
“I am open to members’ suggestions in this space, and I hope that that provides reassurance to Mr Rennie, Mr Greer, Mr Briggs and others who have an interest in the matter. I turn now to group 16. I have strong reservations about Mr Kerr’s amendments 29 and 30, which seek to require the chief inspector to co- design inspections. Amendment 29 would appear to require each individual inspection to be designed separately. Although every inspection is different and they will be tailored to meet the specific context of the establishment that is being inspected, there still needs to be a degree of consistency in how establishments are inspected. In addition, the amendment’s requirements would be extremely resource intensive, and they would put at risk there being a consistent approach that is fair and equitable across inspections.”
“Before I speak to the group 16 amendments, I want to briefly reference the group 15 amendments that were debated last night. I have committed to members to place on the record my intent to engage with the General Teaching Council for Scotland, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other appropriate partners on issues relating to the oversight of safeguarding and child protection systems. I already wrote to COSLA about that on 13 June and it is my intention that the education and childcare assurance board will discuss those issues at its meeting in September. The Government is keen and willing to use our convening power to identify and address with partners, including the GTCS, any remaining information-sharing challenges in relation to child protection.”
“That is why leaving the accreditation function in the qualifications body is not a palatable option. The proposal in the amendments to move accreditation to a new body—whether to curriculum Scotland or another body—would help to deliver both scrutiny and parity of esteem. Currently, school-based qualifications—”
“Setting up a new body such as curriculum Scotland—a single, arm’s-length organisation that would steer what is taught, guarantee the standard of the certificates that flow from that teaching and drive the continuous improvement of both—is the remedy for that. As a reformed Education Scotland that would become independent of Government, it would deliver opportunity for all, support a broad curriculum, empower teachers to design and deliver that curriculum and embed coherence in the system. Young people would be supported to learn, driven by their interests, aspirations and what employers need, not by assessment, as often happens now. Curriculum Scotland as a body could support that and broaden the offer on school-based qualifications so that vocational, academic and technical pathways are delivered, valued, assessed and recognised.”
“It means a new curriculum agency in which teachers and subject specialists can work in networks, together, to develop world- leading resources for a world-leading curriculum, supported by a Government that shows leadership and direction, but at arm’s length. Colleagues will recall that every review that has been placed before us—the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study and Professor Muir’s report—as well as the evidence to the Education, Children and Young People Committee at stage 1 made the same diagnosis: the curriculum, accreditation and improvement functions are dispersed across too many bodies that do not always communicate and are not coherent.”
“Trust and confidence are central to the integrity of any education system, but that integrity has broken down—not overnight, not as a consequence of one decision or event and certainly not as a result of anything that staff in schools or parents and pupils have done, but as a result of multiple failures by the SQA. The starkest failure was during the pandemic, when the then Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, John Swinney, downgraded the exam results of the poorest pupils. Young people are our greatest asset in Scotland. We owe it to them to create the best possible environment for them so that they can thrive. Experts have told us what that means and what it looks like.”
“Will the Government actually abolish the Scottish Qualifications Authority, or will there simply be a rebrand? Separating the body that awards qualifications from the body that regulates and accredits them is fundamental, and my amendment 98 would do just that. Along with consequential amendments 179, 266, 289, 304 and 307 to 311, amendment 98 would help to ensure that the new qualifications body can begin afresh, with leadership embedded in a reformed vision and with new governance, while also being independent from the body that accredits and regulates qualifications. That separation is critical to restoring trust in the system.”
“Amendment 158 pre-empts amendment 159; amendment 161 pre-empts amendment 162; amendment 163 pre-empts amendment 164; amendment 251 pre-empts amendments 253 and 252; amendment 251 also pre-empts amendment 254 in group 11; amendment 276 pre-empts amendment 277; amendment 304 pre-empts amendment 305; and amendment 304 pre-empts amendment 306. Pam Duncan-Glancy: I ask members to please be patient and consider what I say carefully as I outline a number of the amendments in this group, which may take a bit of time. The amendments in group 2 invite Parliament to address and resolve what is considered to be the bill’s central question and an important policy choice: will Scotland at last secure an independent guardian of standards in qualifications?”
“Miles Briggs: I have nothing further to add, and I press the amendment. Amendment 1 agreed to. Section 4—The accreditation function The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 2 is on accreditation and quality assurance of qualifications. Amendment 98, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, is grouped with amendments 125, 147, 154, 156, 158, 159, 161 to 164, 169 to 179, 8 to 10, 193 to 197, 199, 200, 207 to 209, 225 to 228, 251, 253, 252, 260, 261, 266, 276, 277, 282, 284, 285, 288, 289, 304 to 311, 313 and 314. I draw members’ attention to the procedural information in the groupings in relation to the amendments.”
“I am grateful to the Presiding Officer for accepting my amendment 321 as a manuscript amendment so that a comparable change can be made to the equivalent publication duty in part 2 of the bill, as I would not want anyone to draw the conclusion that the Government was suggesting that the chief inspector did not also need to publish documents in a similar manner. However, I am not able to support amendment 168. The amendment reflects provisions from the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, which would not work in the context of this section of this bill. I acknowledge that Pam Duncan-Glancy is not going to move amendment 168, however, and I very much accept the intention behind it. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Miles Briggs to wind up and say whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 1.”
“I thank Mr Briggs and Ms Duncan-Glancy for setting out their amendments. I put on the record my sincere thanks to Scottish Government officials in the legislative team and in policy for all their assistance ahead of today’s large stage 3 amendment proceedings. I am grateful to the offices of Ms Duncan-Glancy and Mr Briggs for working with the Government on amendments 1, 5, 76, 166, 167, 248 and 249 to ensure that they will strengthen the bill for people with educational support needs. Of course, the Government is happy to support those amendments. As for Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 165 and 168, I would be happy to offer my support to amendment 165 as I believe that adding the word “inclusive” to section 25 would deliver on our shared intentions.”
“I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business. Members who wish to put a question should press their request-to-speak buttons.”
“Ministers will provide a further update to Parliament early in the new term. I have appreciated the cross-party engagement with local members, and I give colleagues an undertaking today that that engagement will continue as we progress with the associated next steps. Finally, I offer my personal thanks to the trade union representatives at Dundee university. Their leadership and support to their members at this time has been invaluable. A line must now be drawn under the mistakes of a collective few, and jointly, across this chamber, we must endeavour to support Dundee university to rebuild, thrive and, once again, flourish. The city of discovery should expect no less. The Presiding Officer: The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement.”
“Some of the planned job losses that are currently being experienced relate directly to that uncapped expansion; the costs that are being paid today are the unsustainable jobs that were created as a result of that. Although Dundee university’s finances might be unique, its approach to investment in the international student economy is not, so there is a lesson in Dundee university’s experiences that other institutions should be mindful of. Clearly, Dundee university will need time to fully work through the challenges that the Gillies review presents, and to respond accordingly. Ministers will support that endeavour through the auspices of the Scottish Funding Council, and the SFC will provide an update to the Education, Children and Young People Committee on its associated next steps.”
“It is, therefore, vital that the university works to secure a plan that will allow for commercial lending to support some, or all, of that liquidity ask. The Government will, of course, consider all avenues and other support that we can provide to achieve that end. I want to provide reassurance today to the wider higher education sector that the additional funding to Dundee university will not impact on the funding that is available from the SFC to any other institution. In doing so, I recognise that many institutions have, over recent years, worked proactively in response to a challenging operating environment to rationalise their operations, including their staffing levels. However, there is a need for our universities to reflect on the levels of growth that we have witnessed in some institutions during the pandemic in particular.”