Seòmar agus comataidhean

There is a concern that the plan could have been more ambitious. If the local plans have that ambition, that may be more effective. I do not think there is disagreement about government setting the standards that are expected, but there needs to be an understanding that different public bodies and different listed authorities will need to work through those differently because of geography, rurality and all sorts of different things. It will be interesting to see progress on that in subsequent years.

I will leave it there because I know that others want to come in with questions on specific details.

Yes. You talked about the engagement with BSL users during the development of the plan. That happened, but they were still disappointed when the final plan was developed. They thought that certain conversations had gone further than were reflected in the plan. The implementation advisory group that you talk about is one mechanism of ensuring that we cannot just tweak the plan, but make the next few years as ambitious as possible. We might tick all the boxes, but those boxes have to deliver meaningful change. I accept your point about education.

You highlighted this morning the high-level priorities of engagement and the reviewing of qualification guidance, which was really good to hear.

This may follow on from Paul O’Kane’s question. Given the need to support other public bodies, what is the role of engagement between the Government, other public bodies and BSL users? How do you see that triangle working? Where there will be disagreement or frustration because of resource allocations and so on, what is the role of engagement in making sure that the plan delivers for BSL users?

In your opening remarks, Deputy First Minister, you talked about the national plan, how it is not static and how it needs to evolve and be built on as we go through. The correspondence that you sent the committee notes comments that we heard during the inquiry, which we highlighted in the report, about how the second national plan appears to be watered down. You partially accept that, but you give the space for building and evolving. Do you want to make any comments on the robustness of the plan? How do we make sure that it actually delivers and does not feel as though it is not as ambitious as it should be?

Good morning. I thank both witnesses for joining us and for their comments so far. My first question is on the new powers that the SHRC received under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. I am curious to understand how that act has affected your work. Have you used the new powers yet? Do you have the resources for them? Do you have what you need to make best use—full use—of those powers and have you been able to do so?

That is helpful. As you said, it is quite exciting to be laying down that vital foundational work. You have gathered so much evidence and scoped so much in the spotlight projects that you will be identifying potential areas for intervention or litigation.

I will move on to ask about where a couple of spotlight projects will go next. First, I will ask about the project on moving from institutions to independent living. I was interested that Angela O’Hagan talked about the increased engagement that there seems to be with the Parliament. Given that too many people remain in institutional care, are commitments from the Scottish Government not being borne out in people’s lived experience or realities? Is the increased engagement masking real action? Are we talking about stuff but not actually doing it? In relation to institutional care, where are the challenges? What barriers are preventing the implementation of the recommendations that the Scottish Government is seeking to follow?

That was really helpful, and I know that the committee will be keeping an eye on that in our inquiry in the new year.

My final question is on the human rights assessment that you are doing on the tinker experiment. In your opening remarks, Angela, you mentioned the work that the commission has done with Gypsy Traveller communities. Thinking about the apology that was given in June, and which came after many years of campaigning—and I pay tribute to people like Roseanna and Shamus McPhee and Dr Lynne Tammi-Connelly for their work in that respect—I am just curious about how your work intersects or integrates with the work that the Scottish Government has done and is doing.

Also—and this picks up on a point that Jan Savage just made—what does redress for victims mean? What would that look like, given how long the tinker experiment went on for?

The rhetoric and the comments from so many people in this building and beyond—from duty bearers and those who support duty bearers—are about wanting to make the change and make the shift. I appreciate that you have not yet done your assessment of the position 12 months on from “Tick Tock”, but is there something that you can put your finger on now? I suppose that, if you could answer yes, you would have done that by now.

Is something blocking the cultural shift—the move away from the review, recommend and repeat cycle—in detention and so many other areas where that cycle applies? We know—or think that we know—where we want to get to, but there seems to be no pathway and there is a reticence to publish an attempt at that pathway. Eleven months on, we still have no response from the Scottish Government, for example. Can you put your finger on something or is it just that the cultural change—the refocusing and reorienting towards rights realisation in everything that we do—is a very big thing, so it takes time? The situation is incredibly frustrating.

Thank you. We look forward to reading that report.

I apologise for not being with you in person today. I remind colleagues of my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am rector of the University of Dundee.

The bill presents an opportunity to reset the governance and accountability framework for Scotland’s universities, colleges and training providers. It is clear that we need firm statutory protections against the kind of governance failures that we have recently seen at the University of Dundee.

We know that Dundee’s crisis was not inevitable: the Gillies report clearly said that it was caused by a failure of financial oversight, poor internal controls, lack of transparency, weak governance and a culture that discouraged dissent or scrutiny. The report found that the university court had repeatedly been presented with rosy narratives rather than with accurate and timely data about income decline, cash flow, banking covenant breaches and the like, which meant that the court was effectively blind to the risk until it was too late. That is not just one failure: it is a warning to the entire Scottish higher education sector.

The von Prondzynski review of higher education governance in Scotland laid out many of those risks back in 2012. It argued that stronger, legally enforceable transparency, accountability, and stakeholder-inclusion measures were needed and went beyond what a non-statutory code could guarantee. We can clearly see the consequences of ignoring that call. We cannot rely on good will, reputational pressure or voluntary codes alone.

My amendments in this group speak to six pillars of good governance and together would create a statutory bulwark against secrecy, irresponsible decision making and unchecked executive power.

Amendment 52 would make mandatory the publication of governing body agendas, minutes and papers dealing with major decisions. It would ensure transparency so that staff, students and the public can see what the court or board is deciding, and on what basis. It would remove the ability to hide critical decisions behind closed doors until after the fact.

Amendment 57 would introduce a governance publication scheme for every institution, creating a proactive freedom of information-plus regime in which institutions would publish governance structures, risk registers, internal audit summaries, financial sustainability statements, conflict-of-interest registers and more, doing so regularly and publicly. Early warning signs, such as deteriorating cash flow or growing risks, would become visible long before they reach crisis point.

Amendment 58 speaks to transparency and accountability for remuneration, establishing a statutory framework for remuneration committees. Too often, senior pay is decided behind closed doors by a small group of insiders. The amendment would require remuneration committees to have independent external members and would ensure staff and student representation. It would also require publication of a full annual remuneration report, including performance criteria and external appointments, which is essential for accountability.

Amendment 59 would enable statutory escalation and whistleblowing to the SFC. When internal governance fails, there must be a legally protected external route for concerns from staff, students, governors or auditors to go directly to the regulator. The amendment would give that route: protected disclosure directly to the SFC, with a duty on the institution to notify the Funding Council of a “material governance failure.”

Amendment 60 seeks to create a strict conflict-of-interest and disclosure regime. It would require all governing body members and senior officers to declare registrable interests, update them promptly and recuse themselves when conflicted. The register would have to be public and updated within 28 days, and non-declaration or participation while conflicted would be an offence.

Amendment 53 seeks to put the Scottish code of good higher education governance on a statutory footing. Rather than leaving the code as a soft, voluntary instrument, the amendment would put it on a statutory footing, which is so important. That would ensure that all institutions are legally bound to follow the baseline standards of good governance. The SFC can monitor and issue directions if necessary.

Statutory powers are essential; guidance is not enough. The code alone clearly was not enough in the case of Dundee. According to the Gillies report, decisions were repeatedly taken without appropriate paperwork, proper scrutiny or dissenting voices being recorded. Reliance on institutional good will simply failed: a top-down culture of “positive narrative” and suppression of challenge prevailed.

A regulatory regime that is based on statutory duties, not suggestions, provides real deterrence. That creates legal consequences for non-compliance, or at least the possibility of regulatory intervention. It also gives staff, students and stakeholders real rights to information, to challenge and to have voices heard through transparent governance structures.

The amendments take the next steps to fully implement the von Prondzynski review from 2012, and they are core to the future stability, integrity and public purpose of Scotland’s universities. I urge colleagues to support them.

That is helpful, but can I check your figures? You mentioned a total contribution of over £1 billion and you said that the pilot involves funding of £130 million over two years. That is 6.5 or 7 per cent of the overall fund. I understand the point of pilots but what is the path for shifting from that pilot to full roll-out?