Post-16 Education (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Part of the debate – in the Scottish Parliament at on 27 March 2013.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Michael Russell Michael Russell Scottish National Party

As ever, I am glad that I took Margo MacDonald’s intervention because she talks good sense. I said at the beginning and say again now that I am happy to discuss amendments and improvements to the bill. I suppose that I am done for if I do and done for if I don’t. When I said that at the beginning, Mr Findlay and Mr Pentland seized upon what I had said and said that I was making a desperate attempt to get the bill through. I make the commitment to members that I am keen that we make a collaborative attempt to ensure that the bill passes. That is the heart of the matter and I want members to reflect on that.

If the bill does not pass, certain things will happen. We will not get better governance or wider access; I will talk about those points in a moment. That would be very serious indeed, but that is what we are talking about. Mr Henry said in his speech that the bill is a wonderful idea, although he said at times that he is not sure that it is needed. He does not disagree with any of it but he will not back it—I am afraid that that will not wash, because no bill that comes to the Parliament is perfect. That is why we have a clear process for legislation, which allows for the improvement of bills at every stage.

The legislation process was agreed by all parties when the Parliament was established and it should be known to every member in the chamber. Members talk about a bill being withdrawn or not proceeding, or something similar happening, but that is not in the process. The procedure says that the Parliament either agrees or disagrees with the general principles of the bill and that is where we are today. What would be achieved if the bill were to be withdrawn? Nothing at all. We cannot achieve anything if there is no bill. Only amendment and progress can change the bill, yet those members who oppose it do not want to amend it and do not want it to progress.

We have heard the committee’s intention to take evidence about the code, so if that is the reason for members not supporting the bill, members know that there will be evidence at stage 2, which is possible under the process. Labour members need to remember that further delay would simply mean that the positive proposals in the bill would fail to take effect because the final stage of the bill’s progress would not take place according to the timetable that has already been agreed. Wider access, better governance, more focus on employability, essential improvements in data quality, and regionalisation would not happen. That is clearly, alas, what the Tories want. The sad reality—unfortunately I have become convinced of this today and I was getting convinced of it anyway—is that the Tories do not want the type of open access that there should be in Scotland.