 ac ywsgolod cael y presidol yn gus, yn unig iawn i'r sector fel Norsgion Gymwrgych. Ysgrif Weinidog, i gael y cwestiynau iawn i iawn i'r rhwng, a'r gwneud â Gwyrdaint I oedd rwyf iawn i'r cwestiynau iawn i Gwyrdaint I, a'r gwneud yn y ddogfwy o'r sefydliad, fel nifer amllunau, a'r cwestiynau iawn i gael y reiwn, ac yn ei gweithredu'r llefiau amserau, ond ar gyfer gwyll花iad yw i'n dechrau amg eggplant. button now and I'll just give a few seconds for everybody to settle. Thank you. I now call Anne McTaggart to speak to and move the motion. Ms McTaggart, 13 minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is my great privilege to open today's debate and welcome the key stakeholders and their families to the gallery today. Of course, to move the motion in my name, that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the transplantation, authorisation of removal of organs etc. Scotland Bill. Today, Presiding Officer, we are debating and voting on whether we as a Parliament agree the general principles of the Bill before us. That is whether we agree with the Bill's overall purpose, which is ultimately to introduce a soft opt-out system of organ donation in Scotland. It is not about whether we agree with every specific provision within the Bill. That is what the amending stages of the Bill parliamentary process are for. If members agree that Scotland should have a soft opt-out organ donation system, they should vote yes tonight. If they are against introducing an opt-out system, they should vote no. That is the decision that we are making today. It has taken me almost two years to reach this point and it would be absolutely devastating to all those who have participated and built up their expectations if that time has been wasted. Time is a luxury that those who are waiting on an organ transplant do not have. Tragically, not everyone who started this journey with us is here today to hear this debate. That is the reality. It has been a huge privilege to hear the personal stories of those whose lives have been affected by waiting on an organ transplant from those who have been given the gift of life. I would personally, from the bottom of my heart, sincerely thank them for sharing their experiences. I know that that has not been easy for them. Members should be in no doubt that people want us to introduce a soft opt-out system of organ donation, not at some point in the future, but right here, right now. I would also like to place on record my thanks to the members of the health and sport committee, the finance and delegated powers and law reform committees for their consideration of the bill and its accompanying documents and the non-government bills unit for all its assistance, the fabulous assistance that they have provided, David McColgan, the British Heart Foundation and Caroline Wilson of the Glasgow Even Times for their total support over the last two years, but last but not least, I would like to thank my wonderful team for all their hard work, patience and support as they care as passionately about this bill as I do. As I said, the bill has one single purpose, to introduce a soft opt-out system of organ donation in Scotland. We can agree at a later date the mechanics of how we will implement this system if there is a will and a political will to do so. Let's be clear, as I have always been from the bill's conception, that the bill, as introduced, is not the final word. It can be amended at later stages. This bill is necessary as people in Scotland still die every year whilst waiting on an organ transplant. Mike McKenzie? I am not going to get for taking intervention. Do you agree with me that some of the difficulties in the bill—for instance, the matter of proxies—are complex issues for which no apparent solution springs quickly to mind or at least those of us who participated in the health committee's deliberations? Therefore, it is very difficult within the very short timescale that we will have before the dissolution of this Parliament to necessarily present amendments that will be given careful consideration that those kind of issues need. His intervention, and no, I do not agree with him that that is the case. We have here seen within this Parliament amendments up to 200 amendments that came before in stage 2 in bills. I do not see that the proxies are of any difficult to anyone's and, just to say, the proxies keep us in line with the UK structure. As I said, the bill has one purpose, a single purpose, to introduce the soft opt out. Things need to change. The minister herself has asked that we do not concentrate on annual organ donation rates but look at the long-term trends instead. With every reduction in donations meaning that lives are lost, it is right that we should be concerned when donation and transplant rates are decreasing significantly, not just for one year but for a second year in a row. Last year deceased donor rates fell by almost 8 per cent, a deceased donor transplant by 12 per cent. This year's data looks just as worrying with an expected 16 per cent reduction in deceased donor rates. The minister did not provide any explanation for this disturbing trend and no sense of urgency in determining why those rates are falling so rapidly. People want us to take action now. We have the opportunity today to turn this trend around. By agreeing this bill and implementing a soft opt out system for organ donation, a tried and tested system that works successfully in many countries around the world, by changing the way that people think about organ donation from, I would rather not think about it, to one of, let's discuss, by reducing the instances where families are asked to make a decision on behalf of their loved ones but are unaware of their wishes, by honouring the wishes of those who have opted in by reducing the number of instances where a person's views are overruled. We have a pretty good idea of just how many lives that this could save. Despite improvements, we enjoy nowhere near the rates of deceased donations that our European neighbours experience. They have over 50 years' experience and knowledge of this. Ms McTaggart, for giving way. I congratulate Ms McTaggart for bringing forward this proposal. She talked about the possibility of extra donors. Do she agree with the figures that British Heart Foundation Scotland has come up with, which says that there will be around about 70 extra donors per year if a soft optite scheme is introduced? Thank you for that, and yes, I most certainly do agree with it. Let's be clear, there is a price to be paid for delaying this decision. I have never said that this is a silver bullet, but an optite system that is part of an effective organ donation strategy that can and will improve organ donations. The legislation process itself takes time. It has taken me two years to get to this point. Please do not let that time be wasted by making it necessary to start the whole process again. Dr Sue Robertson of the British Medical Association summed it up perfectly when she said, all the time we waste now means that more lives will be lost. We have a pretty good idea of just how many lives that will be, as the member Kevin Stewart has just mentioned. The NHSBT gave some figures to the health committee and they believe that the bill could result in an extra 70 plus donors in Scotland each year. Sally Johnson, the director of organ donation and transplant of NHSBT, described that figure as transformative, telling the health and sport committee that, to put that figure into context, there are about 100 donors per year in Scotland. 70 more would be transformative. Colleagues, let us not squander our opportunity to begin that transformation today. I agree with the committee's findings that there is merit in developing a workable soft optite system for Scotland. That bill gives us the opportunity to contribute to agreeing a workable optite system. We should be grabbing that opportunity with both hands. The evidence already exists that optite systems work. People will find it hard to understand why any MSP would decide to delay the implementation, let alone for a number of years, when we could begin to implement that bill. The majority of the committee concluded that, in their view, the Scottish Government should consider legislating. Not that it should legislate, but that it should consider legislating. For the avoidance of doubt, the current Scottish Government has had nine years to introduce legislation and had the opportunity to legislate instead of me doing that here. Does the member want to intervene? No. I would have been more happy for them to do that. Please believe me, I would have, but they refused. We have heard lots of worum words of support for a soft optite system over the years from no less than our former First Minister, Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon, our current First Minister and even from the Minister herself, Maureen Watt. What we have not heard is any commitment to legislate, therefore I greatly regret the decision by the majority of the Health and Sport Committee who seem happy to kill off this bill. I hope that they too do not come to regret that decision. The majority of the Health and Sport Committee are asking members to vote this bill down today before there is even a chance to amend its details without a guarantee of anything in its place. We will be no further forward, Presiding Officer. If members vote this bill down today, there will be condemning people to wait even longer for a solution to the shortage of organs. Unfortunately, for many, that wait will be too long. The Scottish Government has said that it wants to wait and see how the new Welsh legislation works before deciding whether to introduce its own bill. If we take that approach, people would have to wait at least five or six years for any such bill to be implemented. There is no reason why people in Scotland should be expected to wait that lengthy time. As I said at the start of my speech, members are debating and voting on the general principles of the bill today. Its overall purpose is to introduce a soft optite system of organ duration in Scotland—nothing more than that. Members are not voting on the detail of the optite system or how it will work in practice. Those are matters that we can consider later when debating amendments. That is what happens at stages 2 and 3. Some issues transcend politics, Presiding Officer. Saving people's lives is one of them. I ask members to look beyond those walls and to the people outside of them and decide what is right for them. Is it being asked to wait another five or six years, however, how long? We have the opportunity today to save more lives. Please take it. That opportunity may not come around again for a very long time. If you believe in a soft optite system, then vote with your conscience and vote yes at decision time tonight. I now call on Maureen Watt to speak to a move of amendment 15128.1. I begin by paying tribute to Anne McTaggart. She and her staff have worked tirelessly to bring us to where we are today, debating organ donation in this chamber and raising the debate in the public domain. I know that, like all members in this Parliament, Anne McTaggart is committed to seeing the necessary systems in place to increase organ donation. The circumstances in which someone becomes a donor or requires a donation are distressing. As such, it is vital that we are sensitive to the pain and emotion of those who have lost loved ones, as well as those who are waiting for a lifeline. Although we cannot support the bill before us today due to concerns with specific provisions, we are persuaded that there are merits in developing a workable soft optite system for Scotland. I thank the Health and Sport Committee for producing a well-considered stage 1 report. The Scottish Government supports the recommendations from the majority of the committee. As the committee heard, many professionals currently working in organ donation and transplant field share our concerns over many aspects of this bill. That doctors and specialist nurses who have to work under this legislation have serious concerns about how it would work highlights, in my view, the significant risk in proceeding with this bill. The Government shares the concerns raised into the stage 1 report. In particular, we agree that the appointment of proxies could both cause unnecessary delays and lead to conflict between a proxy and the deceased person's family. It is vital that families do not feel marginalised in discussions about the potential donor. Those discussions are important in order to ensure that the organs are safe to transplant. There is a particular concern in the adults with incapacity. The bill's provisions currently could lock those adults into organ donations as it could not opt out of donation themselves, nor could a guardian do that for them. On authorising investigating persons or AIPs, we do not agree that the existing specialist nurses in organ donation could or should fulfil this role. NHS blood and transplant can gently employ the specialist nurses to raise concerns about that. I will take John Mason's intervention. I thank the minister for giving way. She has already mentioned specific provisions and aspects of the bill, so can she confirm that her opposition to the bill is on these details and not on the major theme of it? Absolutely, and I will come to that. While some of the issues could be addressed through amendments at stage 2, others could not. In particular, if the member would just listen and he might understand why we are objecting to the bill, authorised investigating persons cannot be separated from the bill, as a model proposed requires them to police the new system. Yet they cannot stay in the bill because their presence and the legal and practical checks that the bill requires of them would almost certainly result in delays to the organ donation processes. In addition, as provisions on proxies appear in almost half the bill's sections, it is unlikely that they could just be removed. In order to make the proxy provisions work, there would need to be significant consultation to clarify their role. I thank the minister for taking in intervention. Can I ask the minister what currently is in place for that to happen? There is nothing about proxies in the system at present, but as the majority of the committee found, while not supporting the propositions in the bill, that does not mean that we should not consider developing soft opt-out, along with other measures to increase organ donation. I would like to point out that, in 2006, 650 people were waiting for a transplant. In 2014-15, that was down to 143. In between, more than 507 people, because of the progress that we have made in organ donation, have had donations that were not available in 2006-07. I can confirm today that, in line with the committee recommendation, we are starting preparation for a detailed consultation on further methods to increase organ donations and transplant in Scotland, including soft opt-out, and that, if it is re-elected, we will take that forward as an early priority in the next Parliament and bring forward legislation as appropriate. As I said, we have made progress in recent years. Through changes in process and support since 2008, we have seen an 82 per cent increase in the number of deceased organ donors in Scotland. I can also report that there have been 85 deceased organ donors so far in 2015-16, and the chamber will also be interested to note that, last month, we saw the highest ever number of donors in a single month, meaning that we are on course to exceed the number of donors from last year. We have also seen a 42 per cent increase in the number of deceased donor transplant plants undertaken since 2008, and a 21 per cent decrease in the active waiting list. The minister has taken an intervention, and would she like to comment on the 70 plus that NHS BT has mentioned that, if we did put forward this soft opt-out, it would bring? I do not deny that there could be an increase in the number of people willing to donate their organs, but does the member agree with Dr Rafael Matizan, whom some of the members of the health and sport committee went to visit, that law change on opt-out itself is not enough? We need other things in place as well, and those things are going ahead. I would like to take the opportunity to particularly thank again the organ donation community, along with organ donors and their families, because, without them, the progress that we have made could not have been made. As I said, I reiterate my thanks to Annwick Taggart for raising it. We are not against soft opt-out in principle, but we have a duty to ensure that it is introduced in a way that improves donation rates and does no harm. For the reasons that are set out, the Scottish Government cannot support that particular bill, but we will instead commence work immediately on our own consultation to develop a safe, effective and workable system for Scotland. Therefore, I move the amendment in my name. I now call on Duncan McNeill to speak on behalf of the Health and Sport Committee. I would like to begin, on behalf of the committee, by acknowledging the passion of all those who provided evidence to the committee on this bill. The committee met clinicians and nurses, faith and belief groups, families of organ donors and people who were currently awaiting a transplant or had already received one. All of them support organ donation and describe it as a gift of life. I would like to give a special thanks to those who provided details of their own personal experience of organ donation. I know that that was sometimes emotional and sometimes difficult for some. During those meetings, it was clear to see how transformative organ donation could be for those who received an organ and how difficult the weight and impact of those individuals and families who are on the waiting list. I would like to extend my thanks to Dr Raphael Matinez, director of ONT, Spain's national transplant organisation and his colleagues for taking the time to meet us in Madrid for what was a very informative visit with a world expert in this field. I thank the minister for her response to the committee's report and note the reason the amendment that has been lodged to Johann McTigers motion. The majority of the committee will be pleased to see that the Scottish Government has taken on board our recommendation at paragraph 264 and agreed to commence work in preparation for a detailed consultation on further methods to increase organ donations and transplants in Scotland, including soft-out as an early priority in the next parliamentary session. The minority, of course, will be concerned that not passing this legislation today will result in delays that could have a significant impact and consequence for those 500 or more who are on the transplant waiting list. The bill proposes to change a system of organ donation in Scotland to a soft-out system with an overall aim being to increase the number of organs and tissue that is made available for transplantation in Scotland. The committee unanimously supports the aim to increase organ donation rates in Scotland. However, we were in disagreement as to whether the bill would result in that aim. The evidence that the committee gathered on the bill covered many different areas in varied opinion, as we have heard so far, as to whether the bill would achieve the same. Unfortunately, we have not at the time in today's debate in the chamber to cover all of those. However, I will mention a couple of the main provisions that caused the greatest concern to the majority of the committee. That provision was indeed on proxies. The bill enables a resident in Scotland to appoint up to three people to act as a proxy. The role of a proxy would be to make decisions about authorisation of the removal of an adult's organs for transplantation on the deceased person's behalf. Those proxies are contacted by the hospital in a set order until one is able to take a decision. The rest of the UK runs a similar system that allows people to appoint up to two proxies. We recognise that there are reasons why families may not be in contact with one another. That is something that we would understand. The ability to appoint someone else to make a decision on their behalf after death is certainly considered desirable. However, the majority of the committee believes that the bill's proposals to allow the appointment of up to three proxies could cause unnecessary delays to an already time-sensitive process and could result in additional stress being placed on the family of a donor at a very sensitive time. The majority of the committee agreed with the provision for a proxy to be appointed, believing that it would be useful. It would be a useful role for people who do not have the nix of kin or who do not want their family to make that decision for them on their behalf, such as looked after children. They considered that that would be a useful provision. The other provision that I would like to mention in the time that is allowed is the role of the authorised investigating person or AIP, which caused the majority of the committee's concern. That role is described as being a health professional whose role it is to determine whether or not a deceased adult organs can be lawfully removed and used for transplantation. That would be done by deciding whether six preconditions had been met. The member in charge of the bill noted that she envisaged the role of the AIP being carried out by a specialist nurse in organ donation, but in this bill it would be for the Scottish Government and the NHS to decide which staff would carry out this role. The majority of the committee do not consider that the AIP role could be carried out by a specialist nurse for organ donation, as its role is significantly different from that proposed for the AIP. It also had concerns that the introduction of the role of AIP could cause possible time delays in organ donation process, which could lead to viable organs being lost and families possibly being alienated. The minority of the committee, of course, believes that the role of AIP could be carried out by specialist nurses for organ donation or, indeed, another designated health professional. Irrespective of whether the bill has passed, we have got very little time and I am trying to get through the committee's, but go ahead, Mike. Mike McKenzie. I wonder if you see a kind of logical inconsistency from what the member, Anne McTager, has argued that the bill can be changed by amendment, and the minority position of the committee who suggests that no amendment is necessary? It is a difference of deal. Mike Neil. You are inviting me to express a minority opinion as a colleague on the committee. I would ask her not to do that, but I will not be drawn in. I am speaking on behalf of the committee today and I am trying to do a balancing act. I will not be drawn in to making any critical statement of the member who is proposing the bill. I hope that Mike McKenzie is able to accept that. Irrespective of whether the bill has passed, we have called for the Scottish Government to consider a range of actions to increase organ donation rates, including structural changes to the organ donation system, such as additional specialist nurses and and consultants, or more intensive care beds. We also consider that publicity and awareness raising of organ donation should be a priority. As a committee, we understand Anne McTager's aim of seeking to increase organ donation rates in Scotland, and we welcome the debate that the bill that she has proposed has sparked. However, after a detailed scrutiny, a majority of the committee could not support the general principles of the bill. However, a minority of the committee believes that the bill should progress. The whole committee agrees that more must be done to increase organ donation rates in Scotland. I look forward to the minister's closing remarks to see how quickly we can process with her amendment. Can I pay tribute to Anne McTager for bringing forward this bill to the Parliament? Today, she gives us the opportunity to vote for a bill that will save lives. The Health and Sport Committee received evidence to say that we would increase donations by up to 75 per cent. Even those who had concerns about the bill also conceded that it would increase donations, albeit marginally. I understand that the minister repeated that again today. On average, every donor can save over three lives. They could save up to eight, but the average is three. Even at the margins, the bill will save many lives. No one is suggesting that this is the only thing that needs to be done to increase donation. We need to do much, much more, and there are many interventions in the hands of the Scottish Government right now that they could do that do not need legislation. However, the legislation changes the focus of donation, where the presumption is that someone would wish to donate. Survey after survey has found that the vast majority of Scottish people want to donate, something that is not borne out by our donation rates. The bill also allows those who do not wish to donate to continue to opt out. When deciding about the general principles of the bill today, we need to put ourselves in the situation of those who are waiting on the organ transplantation list in the place of their family and in the place of their loved ones. What would they want us to do today? What would we do if it was us or our loved ones waiting? Would we say, wait and see, give it some more thought? I really don't think so. In this Parliament, we have a duty to the Scottish people that includes those on the transplantation list. We must always have their best interests at heart as if they were our own family, and today we must do the right thing by them. Members must look at their own conscience. If you can vote this down and put your hand on your heart saying you did the right thing, then so be it. Remember that every member must answer for their own actions. I urge members not to have this on their conscience. If you know that this is the right thing to do, then vote for it today. The Government's amendment is senseless. It appears to say that we agree with the general principles of the bill, however we do not agree with the general principles of the bill, and we cannot look both ways at once. If you agree that this bill is the right thing to do, then vote for it. Ammend it as it passes through the Parliament by all means, but vote for it tonight. If you vote it down tonight, then no amount of spurious excuses will justify that. Even if the Government wins the next election and brings forward their own bill early in the next session, people will die in the intervening period, and that is not reasoned, it is absolutely unreasonable. They made a number of excuses and we heard them, firstly the role of the authorised investigating person. That would be carried out by the specialist nurse in organ donation. If there were some concerns about how this role is laid out in the bill, that can be amended at stage 2. However, there does need to be someone overseeing the process, dealing with the family and loved ones, making sure that everything is done properly. That is the case now and it will continue to be the case under the bill. If the role of the AIP is not required, and if you believe that that is the case, then remove it from the bill at stage 2. The Government has the majority in this Parliament, they can do that at stage 2 and indeed at stage 3. Similarly with regard to proxies, Scotland is the only country in the UK that currently does not allow for proxies to be appointed by donors. It is workable, it works in the rest of the UK. A proxy can act on behalf of the donor, giving permission to allow organs to be donated. The Scottish youth Parliament told us in evidence that this was particularly important to people who were estranged from their families, looked after children and the like. It is important that their views were expressed by someone who knew them rather than a stranger. In evidence, we heard of a case where a landlord had given permission for donation because there was no other family. Surely allowing someone to appoint a proxy is better than that. The other concern about proxies is that they would overrule the next of kin. That is a serious point. If the family are unlikely to agree the donation and a potential donor wants to donate, then they could appoint the proxy. However, in evidence it was clear that the donation would not be taken if it was likely to cause distress to the next of kin, because health professionals also had a duty of care to them. Therefore, in practice, a proxy cannot ensure a donation for you. That is something that is difficult to accept when the deceased's wishes will be ignored, and that happens in practice today. Those concerns have been expressed and can be clarified or amended at stage 2. The bill is simple, but it could make a real difference to the number of people whose organs are being donated. Presiding Officer, in conclusion, I struggle with the Government's opposition to the bill. What concerns do they have that are so grave that risk lives? The minister did not convince me today, and I wonder whether she even convinced herself. There is time to change their minds. They can do the right thing by those waiting for a transplant. You can only imagine the frustration of families of the 571 patients on the transplant list. We have the wherewithal to make the difference to their lives, and I sincerely hope that all MSPs will look to their own conscience and vote for this bill tonight. I thank all the witnesses who gave evidence to the Health and Sport Committee to the clerks for their hard work and support in bringing the evidence together, and to the member-in-charge for raising the profile of the hugely important issue of organ donation. I know that Anne McTaggart is passionate about the need to increase organ donation in Scotland. Indeed, there were some highly charged emotional moments during the stage 1 scrutiny of the bill. When we began to take evidence on the bill, I fully expected to be recommending to parliamentary colleagues that we should be supporting it. However, as our scrutiny progressed, I became less convinced that the legislation that has proposed Anne McTaggart's bill would lead to the desired outcome and an ultimate increase in organ transplantation that we all wish for. I would like to spend a little time dealing with one or two of my concerns. That said, I doubt if there is anyone in the chamber who does not wish to see the availability of many more organs to save and improve the lives of the many people with end-stage organ disease, whose only hope of recovery at the present time is transplantation. As many members know, I have a very personal interest in this, because my son has just passed the 24th anniversary of his liver transplant, and he would not have had these years without it, nor would I have my two grandchildren. Even with my motivation, it took me over a decade to sign up to the donor register. That, in our share, led me to think that soft out would be the solution, until, as I said, we scrutinised the bill. Spain has held up as the exemplar on organ donation, with a donor rate in 2006 of 35 donors per million population, the highest in Europe. At that time, the UK rate was one of the lowest, at 13 donors per million population. However, the improved donor rate in Spain was not achieved until 10 years after it adopted up-to-out legislation. We were told that the increase came about only after significant structural change to the nationally organised donor system. It does not seem at all clear from international evidence that legislation per se is responsible for an increase in donor rates. There is general acceptance that, with or without a change in legislation, more can be done to increase the donor rate in Scotland. The classic approach already in place, such as publicity campaigns, donor registers for recording information on driver licences and education programmes in schools, has resulted in a significant improvement. However, even in Spain, with up-to-out legislation in place, it is only when discussion takes place with the family at the point of death that rates begin to show real improvement. The Spanish see this conversation as pivotal. NHSBT, in its organ donation and transplant activity report in 2013-14, shows that, where a specialist nurse in organ donation is involved in the approach to families, to ask for consent for organ donation, the family approval rates go up by almost 50 per cent. So a whole hospital approach should make a difference, whereby staff across the whole hospital and not just transplant teams give thought to organ donation and a specialist nurse in donation is present to have the conversation with the family, rather than an intensive care consultant. I would hope that this approach can be undertaken here, certainly in our bigger hospitals, because it has the potential to make a real difference. Of course, legislation is not necessary in this case. Within the bill itself, there are a number of provisions that is fairly widely thought to be counterproductive in trying to increase the rate and use of organ donations. The use of proxies to make decisions about authorisation of the deceased's behalf could result in the family being marginalised or excluded from the organ donation process. The family may be the only people with the detailed knowledge about the deceased who could have a bearing on the usability of the donated organs. There was also concern that having to contact one or more proxies could result in delays which could harm the organ donation process. We know that organs are already lost, because families pull out when they regard the process as too protracted and stressful, and that could make matters worse. I do not really think of time, I am sorry. The other contentious provision in the bill is the role of the authorised investigating person, or AIP, described in the policy memorandum, as being a health professional whose role would be to determine whether or not a deceased adult's organs can be lawfully removed and used for transplantation. The member in charge of the bill envisages the specialist nursing organisation having the role of AIP. However, the NHSBT, the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics and the Law Society of Scotland all had a different view and saw a conflict of interest between the two roles. There are clearly differing opinions regarding some of the major provisions of the bill, as presented, but what influenced me more than anything were the opinions of people at the cold face of transplantation, such as Professor Forsyth, transplant surgeon and lead clinician for organ donation in Scotland, and transplant nurses that the bill could have the opposite effect from what is intended, and lead to a loss of public trust in a system where organs will only be taken when that is the wish of donors and their families, and an erosion of the concept of organ donation as a gift of life, which is often of great comfort to donor families at a time of grief. That is very important and has to be sought through very carefully before we contemplate moving to a new system. I do not have time to go into other aspects of the bill, but I am not persuaded that changing to the soft opt-out system of organ donation as proposed would in itself result in an increase in donations. However, I would like to see the on-going efforts to increase organ donation enhanced further, and I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to a thorough consultation on further ways to increase donation and transplantation, including a soft opt-out system, which I think should be informed by the experience in Wales, which started, as we know, to implement its legislation last December. I urge the next Government to make this a very early priority and, in light of the evidence presented to it, to proceed with legislation if that is indicated. We will be supporting the member at decision time. We now move to the open debate speeches. I am sad that they were very tight for time today. Up to five minutes please for the open debate speeches. Kenny Gibson, to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. I rise to support the general principles of the bill as asked to do so by the British Medical Association, the British Heart Foundation and the Scottish Kidney Federation. I have long supported this issue since I was first elected here in 1999, and I am proud to have been the first SNP member to have supported Anne McTaggart's bill. We have to give a lot of credit to Anne McTaggart here today, because a number of people looked at putting together a member's bill in my own party—indeed, the Labour Party. Anne McTaggart was the one who picked up the cudgels and moved forward. It is extremely difficult, as you know, for a member to put forward a bill. They do not have all the institutional support of the Scottish Government, and she has struggled forward with a bill that is not perfect, but in terms of what it is trying to do, I think, is a good bill. If we look at the issue, it has been debated by many people over the years. I will touch on a motion that I submitted on 8 October 2012. The motion said that the Parliament regrets what it considers the tragic death of 43 people in Scotland last year while awaiting an organ transplant. Applauds the respect of my dying wish campaign by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, urging people to wish to donate their organs after death to tell their loved ones of their desire so that their wishes can be respected. It recognises calls to introduce a system of presumed consent to help to save the lives of more people awaiting organ transplant. That was three and a half years ago. It was signed by 43 members, including Mike Mackenzie, including the minister, and yet no bill came forward. I have been disappointed and, by successive Administrations, failing to pick up the cudgels on this particular issue. There has been plenty of time to move forward on this. Although I appreciate that the Scottish Government has said that, if we vote down this bill, it will bring one forward, we have to, as has already been stated, consider the people who are already waiting on that transplant list, those 571 people. Soft opt-out has been used in other countries. It is not brand new. It is axiomatic to me that it must increase donation. Think about what the UK Conservative Government is doing in relation to the trade union legislation at this time. Instead of people having to opt out of a union, they have to opt in. Why is the Government doing that? Because there are less likely people to opt in, and that will reduce the number of trade union members and therefore money for the Labour Party. We know that. Quite clearly, when we look at organ donation, it is clear that the fact that people have a soft opt-out means that we will intrinsically, in my passion, totally, 100 per cent convinced view have more people willing to be available to deliver organs. Ann Cain before came to the finance committee, and there were issues with the bill, and we have heard about some of the difficulties at the elder sport committee. Surely it is not beyond the ken of this Government to make the necessary amendments to make sure that legislation can work, rather than have to wait months or years more before we go forward. Simply waiting 17 years, as we have in this Parliament, is 17 years too long. We have umpteen campaigns for umpteen members, but this is a chance for members to stand up and be counted. I hope that members who have signed umpteen motions and spoken in umpteen debates on this issue over the years will follow their conscience and vote for the general principles of the bill, because that is what we are voting for—the general principles are not necessarily the netting range that can be amended. I do not want to take up the time that other members may wish to have, so I will finish early. I think that people know quite clearly where my position is, and I know a number of other colleagues in my party group feel exactly the same way. I look forward to this bill being voted on positively today at decision time. I would like to thank Anne McTaggart for all her great work on the bill, and I also pay tribute to Kenny Gibson and some of his colleagues who have been supporting this kind of legislation for a long time—longer than I have, because I have just changed my mind. During the course of this parliamentary session, I was very happy to be in the minority of the committee in the report that we are debating. The context is the yawning gap between the large majority who wished to donate and the number who are actually on the register. Equally worrying, although we have the highest proportion of registered donors in the four countries of the UK, we actually have the lowest donation rate of the four countries. The donation rates, as Anne has reminded us, are currently decreasing while three people a day die waiting for a transport. No-one is arguing that this change in itself will solve the problem. The minister quoted the Spanish professor that law change on opt-out is not enough, but no-one is saying that it is where those of us supporting opt-out are saying opt-out plus other measures. Indeed, there is a section of the committee report that suggests a range of actions that could be carried out irrespective of what happens to this bill. The simple fact of the matter is that it is hard to resist the evidence that we received about donors. NHS BT, the key UK body on this issue, has been quoted already. Who could be more authoritative than them? They have said in written evidence that there would be 70 plus extra donors. That is very compelling evidence when we are talking about 100 donors currently in Scotland. Sally Johnson of NHS BT, as Anne McTagar reminded us, said that this would be transformative. There is also interesting evidence that we should remember from the NHS donor task force of 2008, that commissioned research from York University. It examined all the evidence that was available and said that all the evidence was that changing to a soft-opt-out system was followed by increases in donation rates. British Heart Foundation, who also cites the figure of 70 extra donors, goes far as to say that there is little, if any, evidence of significant increases in transplant leads without a soft-opt-out system. That is all very compelling evidence. Of course, the consequence of the change, the objective of the changes in general terms, culture change, making donation the norm, but more specifically enable a change in the dynamics of the conversation with the family. That is the most significant part of the organ donation process. Put simply, as I think one of the witnesses said, you would then say something like, we are aware of the person, there is no objection. That would in itself change the nature of the conversation with the family, which would still take place. The proxy, of course, that leads on to the proxy where concerns have been expressed. However, the key fact here is that England and Wales have had a proxy, called an appointed representative, but a proxy since 2004. We have received strong evidence and support of that from the youth Parliament, for example. They carried out research with many young people and there was strong support for it. For instance, the example of those in care who might not want their own natural family to be the ones making given consent. That would apply in other situations, too. If somebody did not trust their family to have the same opinion as them, why should they not appoint a proxy? There has been much misunderstanding of the issue of three proxies. It does not mean that all three would have to be consulted. It is just that the first one was not available, the second or the third. There would be no delays. Personally, I think that the proxy issue can stand in the bill without amendment, but if Mike McKenzie or anybody wants to amend, of course, is it liberty to do that, and also in relation to the authorised investigating person. The fact of the matter is that judgment is exercised now, just as judgment would have to be exercised under the bill, irrespective of whether an AIP is mentioned specifically in the bill. It is interesting that no such person is explicitly mentioned in the Welsh legislation, so it is possible to have an opt-out system without that. If Mike McKenzie wanted to suggest the deletion of AIPs, it would not wreck the bill. I am in my last minute, so I do not think that I can take an intervention. The fact of the matter is that, if people do not like the detail of the bill, they can amend it, but we are voting today on the general principles of the bill. I think that people should be absolutely clear about that and not pretend that they support the soft-out part in general, and then vote against the bill. Finally, 62 per cent of Scots support a soft opt-out, and they will not understand it or forgive us lightly if we pass by this opportunity on the pretence or the so-called pledge to perhaps bring forward some kind of legislation in the next session of Parliament. I now call on Sandra White to be followed by Stuart Stevenson in up to five minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I just want to congratulate Malcolm Chisholman on the speech there. I thought to his comments regarding the proxy, certainly alleviated any concerns that a number of people, I think, may have had. I do respect, obviously, the comments that others have made. I think that the Parliament should always respect comments and contributions from other members and treat them accordingly as well. I congratulate Anne McTaggart on all the work that she has done, and I thank her very much for pursuing what I see in this bill with great tenacity. It is never easy, as Kenny Gibson has said, to put forward the bill. I thank the whole Government committee for approving my bill at stage 1, which I do not think will get through, but I know how difficult it is to get any member's bill through in the Parliament. The great tenacity in the work that Anne McTaggart and her team have done deserves congratulations and praise. I also want to pay tribute to the individuals, groups and the many charities that have worked tirelessly to highlight the issue of organ donation. In particular, I would say that the British Heart Foundation Scotland and Kidney Research UK have done an absolutely fantastic job in raising the awareness of the transplants and donations. Regardless of the outcome tonight at the vote tonight, it will continue to do a great job. I know that all of us here will continue to support them. I support the Princess of the Bill and will be voting for the bill tonight. I note the health committee's report and the concerns that they have raised in my opening remarks. I thank them for it. That is what a committee is there for, to look at every aspect of the bill. Certainly, as other members have said, it will come along to stage 2. I believe that that is when we can get into—I think that it was Anne McTaggart who said that it is nitty gritty, but we can look at the details of the bill. Voting principle of the bill is certainly my intention tonight. It is a free vote in this Parliament from all parties, I believe, so basically no one is getting harangued into doing anything that they do not particularly want to do. However, as I said previously, I think that perhaps we should maybe call some of the language that has been used in previous contributions, because someone perhaps has comments that it is different to someone else's in an area where we are obviously feeling the running high. I think that we should always respect those comments. I certainly respect Nanette Milne's contribution coming from great experience and obviously personal experience also. While I am in the mode of congratulating, I nearly forgot to congratulate my colleague John Mason in the motion that she put forward, highlighting the Welsh Government's opt-out system, which I think is very, very important as well. I want to concentrate perhaps on one particular area in which I have done a good deal of work to be doing, working with the British Heart Foundation Scotland to highlight the issues. However, the kidney research UK fantastic charity, which had lots and lots of fun runs marathons, certainly I did not take part in any marathons, but I may have taken part in a couple of fun runs. I remember when we were all coloured purple, purple t-shirts, and people had all the different types of purple on any way, purple dress and costumes as well. Last year at the Science Centre, Glasgow Science Centre, was the largest gathering of the kidney research UK, which I cannot remember off the top of my head, but it raised loads and loads of money, and it was very, very well supported. It will continue to be supported. Between that being set up, I know that the Government has put forward the peer groups for the kidney research, particularly for Asian families as well. It worked very closely with them, and they have been doing a fantastic job. I know that the Government does support them, not just with money to buy, but with advertising as well in that respect. That has been absolutely amazing. Quite a lot of local folk from my particularly in the Kelvin constituency, from the Gidwara and the Mosses as well take part in that. It is basically talking about what happens if you cannot get a transplant if you are from a particular ethnic minority group, because obviously they are the lowest to put forward their names on the transplant list. Anything that actually brings forward that through either advertising or, as I say, Government support, and obviously public support as well can only be a very good thing. I would like to hear more about the peer project. I certainly will be quite a bit about it, but I am not going to spend my whole time talking about it, but I would be good if we get a wee bit more about the peer project through this as well. I will also be supporting the bill tonight at stage 1 in the principles, and I wish it all the best through the trials of the Parliament. Thank you very much. I come to this debate informed by experience, not the experience of receipt of the organ donations, but the experience of donating from a deceased relative. When my father-in-law, a nurse, died suddenly at the early age of 54, his widow and daughter has decided that there could be no finer memorial to his life than that his death should mean life for others. In fact, the route wider than simply authorising the use of his remains for organ donation, he became part of the education of medical students and their dissection of him after death helped to prepare them for their careers. In due course we sought the same disposal for his widow, but practical issues prevented it. Now, Jim's funeral had a very different focus, less on the coffin at the front of the church, there was none, more on the man, the contribution he had made to the lives of others and the contribution to the future wellbeing of others he was now making. The grieving process seemed easier for that knowledge, and a year later an invitation arrived from the students who had benefited from his donation to join them at the cremation of his remains. Today Jim's granddaughter, a nurse, is state transplant coordinator in Queensland, Australia. Like many, I had, prior to Jim's death, given little or no thought to the issue of organ donation. Now my instructions to my executors are clear and unambiguous. Re-use everything in any way that could benefit others, and all my close relatives know that. My driving licence has the 115 code on the back that can tell others, one of the least well understood indicators of being registered for organ donation. Our Parliament's committee has performed its task in preparing a stage 1 report for our consideration with the diligence that we always expect and almost always get. With the experience of having taken five bills through Parliament, I know how challenging it is to get the detail right to give out the policy intention into proper form for legislation. Difficult, with all the support that a Queen of Civil Servants or committee clerks can provide to a minister or cadena. How much more difficult for an individual MSP relying on the substantially more limited resources of their own knowledge and experience and the assistance of the Parliament's non-government bills unit. At the outset, when this bill came forward, I indicated to our quips that I could not oppose the general principles of this bill because I give paramount say to helping others. I have not changed my mind. Even if the bill's prospects of doing so because of the detailed expression of its principles created difficulties, I have great sympathy with the minister's position. She cannot see a way of yet of making this bill into something that is implementable, but any bill offering even the most meagre prospect of an increase in organ donation needs our endorsement of the general principles. However, and as it is significant but, those whose faith take a different view to mine as to the proper disposal of human remains must not, repeat not, find themselves forced to go against their wishes or the wishes of a deceased person. It does remain a mystery to me, I must say, that I can create a will that directs how all my assets, heritable and movable, should be used after my death, but cannot command how the disposal of the most personal of all that is mine, my body, is disposed of. However, that will be for another day, perhaps in the succession bill, which I expect will be brought forward in the next session of Parliament. I understand the difficulties around legal issues such as confirmation of wills, which take more than the very short period of time in which decisions on organisation have to be made. In conclusion, Government and committee in what they say have accepted the principle of self-doubt, and that is tremendous, the unanimity on that. If we support the general principles at decision time, it may well be that the difficulties with the bill's detail mean that it falls later in the parliamentary process. Let's test the general principles and the expression of them in the bill through the further parliamentary processes. That's the proper point for us to re-arrail its process, if that's the correct outcome. This evening, I must and I shall vote in favour of our endorsing the general principles. I would like to congratulate Anne McTaggart for bringing this bill forward at a time when the need for transplantations is increasing, and I also thank the work of the Health and Sport Committee on scrutinising this bill. I support this bill. Lives are being lost due to the lack of available organs. It's been made clear by the Health and Sport Committee that they believe that there isn't enough evidence to demonstrate that implementing the soft opt-out system that the bill proposes would result in an increase in donations. I also want to point out that the committee noted in its report that, I quote, there may be merit in developing a workable soft opt-out system for Scotland. The Scottish Council on Human Biathics points out the de facto opt-out system, which the Human Tissue Scotland Act introduced in 2006 as a hybrid between an opt-out and an opt-in system. The council proceeds to point out that, while more than 90 per cent of the Scottish population support organ donation, just over 40 per cent of the population is on the organ donor register. I quote, the difference between good intentions and actual decisions. The hesitation or inability to carry an organ donor card, which I do, is an impediment to increasing the donor list numbers. The British Medical Association believes that the decision not to opt-out of donation is much of a gift as a decision to opt-in. We have to harness the 90 per cent support among the population for organ donation and save more lives along the way. Looking to examples both domestically and internationally, we can point to the world leading example of Spain, which continuously surpasses its own record on organ donations, and, of course, at the very recent implementation of this very legislation in Wales. The Spanish example, with its high donation rate, can be imitated in Scotland. The management ways are a more flexible and robust legislative framework, and the awareness among the population should be our key drivers and objectives. The Health and Sport Committee recognises this no less. The evidence that it heard of the transformative effects of organ donation, both for individuals and their families, is a new life that can be found from a person who is willing to make such a gift are things that we must promote among our people. Our main goal has to be about saving lives and doing so in a way that every potential donor and family member understands. I am supportive of hearing more about this bill and how we can turn this instrument into one that can benefit more people. I also want to ensure that, on ethical issues as this is, we allow no margin for any error or ethical corners. How do we ensure that a sustainable long-term education and awareness campaign achieves the right goals of answering the right questions? What will the relationship be between family members and proxies appointed by the donor in the case of conflict, and what do medical ethics tell us about such conflicts? There are also numerous other issues that the committee noted and other perspectives to consider, but do we have enough evidence that an opt-out system would in itself lead to an increase in organ donations? Is the NHS able to, at this stage, undertake the structural change of developing the specialist workforce for the organ donation system, creating the infrastructure capacity to accommodate the rise in operations and carrying out the necessary awareness campaigns? I believe that a much stronger scrutiny of the bill is needed, yet that does not warrant its defeat at stage 1 today. A lot of the answers to the questions that I mentioned can be provided in the bill continuing to its next stages. However, should that particular piece of legislation fail to pass tonight—and I hope that it does not—I would like the minister's intentions to take forward a consultation in the next session on further methods to increase our organ donation guarantees so that we can improve health for the thousands of people waiting on the transplant list to long-term savings for the NHS, who would see those who are receiving an organ living with better health, and, of course, a more open way to talk about organ donation and drive up the rates in our society to save lives. I believe that we can start now and with this bill and give us all a chance to amend this bill at stages 2 and 3. The topic touches on issues of ethics, personal beliefs, medical evidence and health issues. It is a multifaceted issue that enjoys support for its end goal, but it must be heavily scrutinised, of course, and balanced between what is right and what is good. I support this bill and shall be voting for it at decision time. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I, too, congratulate Anne McTaggart, and there is also a highly emotionally charged debate. Of every sympathy for the ends of the member's wishes to achieve, I, myself and my registered donor, encourage people to do it. You simply go online, fill in the boxes and your card arrives, but I do not support this bill. I will turn to section 6, which nobody has addressed. It is to do, in fact, with the state authorising consent. Although the words presume consent are not actually in the bill, that is what is in the background. Notwithstanding the caveats in that section, I cannot agree to it. How can one presume consent? That is an oxymoron. Consent is greatly defined in Scotslaw. The consenting party must have capacity. They may not have this through age or mental capacity. It must be informed. Opting in does that, opting out does that, but silence does not. It must be freely given, and all of the above must be evidenced by the facts. In my view, any bill that introduces the idea of a presumption of consent when there is no evidence as to the individuals, flies in the face of a basic principle of Scotslaw, which, in our courts, is tested frequently in contractual disputes, claims of negligence and, of course, in particular, in cases of rape and sexual assault. The idea of presumed consent in the absence of any evidence of consent for me is unacceptable. Moving on to the practicalities, and I will come back to solutions to that, I take the opportunity to quote the words of a retired consultant of the western general. The answer to the question why now presumed consent is, as we have heard, there are insufficient organs available to meet the needs of those with terminal organ failure who need new organs. It is very tempting to change the ethical and legal framework in which we operate to overcome this shortage. However, to someone with little specialist legal or ethical knowledge, this would appear to be a rather dodgy thing to do. As I have said, I am not qualified to speak with authority on legal aid and ethical issues. However, as an intensivist, I have an involvement in organ donation stretching over 30 years, and I feel reasonably well qualified to comment on the possible implications of presumed consent on the whole practice of organ donation. Of course, there would be an opt-out with people able to register their unwillingness to donate their organs in the event of sudden death. If he felt sufficiently motivated, he could access this register, probably via a website, an opt-out of donation. However, how valid would this be, how many would do this? I think that it would be difficult to reassure grieving relatives that their loved one who had just died really did want to give his organs, based on the fact that he or she had not registered an opt-out. It is amazing how hard information about the deceased wishes as expressed on the register removes any doubt, and relatives are immediately able to agree to donation. I have personally never had a family refuse a retrieval where the deceased held a donor card or was on the register, or of course there have been exceptional cases that others have had. If we had compulsory registration of wishes either way, we will retain the concept of balanced, informed consent, rather than cutting legal and ethical corners. I think that more people would be happy to agree to organ donation. Continuing the quotation, if I seem negative about organ donation, I must provide evidence to the contrary. I was first involved in organ donation as a senior registrar in the southern general in Glasgow in 1978. I was involved in the first multi-organ donor in Dundee, and as consultant in charge of the general and neuro-ICU at the western from 1988 to 2000. I have personally fostered a positive attitude to donation. I leave you with those thoughts. First of all, the principle in Scots law of consent must not be waived aside for the best of reasons and the best of ends that we must consider very carefully. Secondly, there is a solution. The solution may be to consider a compulsory register of opt-in and opt-out subject to exceptions for people on religious grounds. Then we have a clear view of what the deceased wishes were on death. I think that that, given the consultants' views or the legal position about knowing what people really want and when they are given their consent, I am sorry, I am in my last minute. Knowing where they are on this, it would take us where all of us want to be, which is to have more donors but to do it in proper legal form. Thank you. Thank you so much. Now I call on Margaret McCullough to be followed by Mike McKenzie. Up to five minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. At the outset, let me congratulate Anne McTaggart for bringing this bill to the chamber and for taking her proposals this far through the parliamentary process. Her bill has been an important part of a genuine national conversation about organ donation in this country. That is a testament to her hard work, the hard work of Drew Smith before her and the campaigning effort of Kidney Research UK, the British Heart Foundation, The Evening Times and many, many more. Whatever the Parliament ultimately agrees, I think that the conversation that was started by the Op for Life campaign has been a healthy and productive one. If it has got people out there considering organ donation and thinking about their final wishes, then that debate has been worthwhile. However, I also want to state at the outset that I am very firmly of the view that, if the changes that we are discussing today were to become law, we could give real hope to people on waiting lists and save lives. It is for that reason that I support the principles underpinning this bill, and I hope that members across all sides of this Parliament can do so too. When we last debated transplantation, I made reference to the work of the organ donation task force. It has now been eight years since the task force reported on ways to improve organ donation. The progress that has been made in that time has been welcomed, particularly by the medical profession. Their findings have shaped policy, informed the work of government and many believe that they have contributed to an increase in donation rates. Better training, better co-ordination and more awareness all make a difference, yet despite the progress that has been in recent years, real challenges remain. Those challenges must be overcome. I draw the chamber's attention to the written evidence that the British Heart Foundation supplied to the Health and Sport Committee. According to the BHF, nearly 7,000 people in the UK are in waiting lists and three people die every day waiting for an organ. Levels of organ donations are still low by European standards, even though 90 per cent of the public say that they support organ donations. Only 32 per cent are actually registered as organ donors. Over 46 per cent of families refused organ donation in a single year because they did not know what their relative's wishes were. Long waits and confusions about the wishes of families are costing lives, and that is why the bill before us is so important. John Mason talks about the whole relationship between the donor and the families. Does he agree that that relationship is an issue that is to be challenged anyway and that it is not relevant to the bill? Whichever way we go, that is a problem. I totally agree that, also within the bill, the relative's wishes are consulted and taken into account. For us in Scotland, a country that has already improved public education and awareness in the health professions surely the next step is to look at new ways of increasing donation rates through legislative and cultural change. Surely the next step is to give serious consideration to the soft opt-out. It is not just a matter of changing the law and moving towards a position of presumed consent. It is also about changing attitudes and creating a culture of openness and understanding in which we can more readily talk about what we want to happen to our bodies before we die. There should be rigorous safeguards to make sure that liberty and choice is protected and presumed consent does not mean taking away a choice. I am not a member of the health committee but I can see that much of the focus of their deliberations has been about how to ascertain what individual choices actually are. Families should be consulted even when their loved ones have failed to opt out to establish whether they are aware of any objections and whether proceeding with organ donations would cause distress. I also note that the committee discussed whether or not the changes proposed would lead to the desired increase in organ donations. BMA Scotland, to support the principles of the bill, accepts that it is notoriously difficult to assess the impact of opt-out legislation on donation rates. However, it has also pointed to the example of Wales where only 3 per cent have opted out from organ donation. We can look to other examples from around the world where the legislation is different yet donation levels are higher. Opt-out is not new. Across Europe there are plenty of examples of countries that have successfully managed to opt-out systems of organ donations for many years. As we said, the committee visited Spain, which has the highest level of organ donation in the world. Presiding Officer, if the bill does not pass through, I hope that the Government will revisit the issue in the next session, as it has promised. For now, I will be supporting the soft opt-out to give real hope to all those who are waiting for a life-saving transplant and their families. Let's choose to change an opt for life. I would like to say at the outset that I have a great deal of respect for Ann McDaggart and for her passion and conviction on the issue of organ donation. I approached our scrutiny of Ann's bill with more than an open mind. I actively wanted to support it. In terms of the general premise on which the bill was founded, that of the soft opt-out for organ donation, I could find nothing to disagree with back then. It seemed to be a matter of common sense that moving from a soft opt-out to a soft opt-in to a soft opt-out system would be bound to increase the supply of organ donors and therefore of organs. It seemed straightforward, and I know that a number of my colleagues had similar views, but during the course of the scrutiny and in the face of the evidence that we uncovered, I have been forced to change my mind, not in the general principles but certainly in the detail within the bill. No, thank you, we are short on time. Firstly, it is important to set the context. It is true that we saw a falling off of organ supply in 2014-15, but this is against a very significantly and rising trend of increasing supply of organ donation. We must therefore be doing something right and therefore feel that we ought to pay heed to the advice that we received from many of the experts in this field who were opposed to the bill. The evidence that would be a strange thing if we took evidence from experts and then paid no heed to that. The evidence from across the rest of the world is not clear cut. Although there is a suggestion that soft opt-out systems seem to perform better—no, thank you, I am short of time—it is difficult to know if this is purely because of the soft-out system, as we have heard about the situation in Spain, or if the increased organ supplies are due to other complementary factors. I think that Anne McTaggart herself agrees that a whole range of actions are needed to improve organ donation rates. No, thank you. The Scottish Government has informed us that the action is already under way to improve the quality of conversations that are held with bereaved farmers. Presiding Officer, just so that I am clear how I am voting at decision time, we are voting today on the general principles of the bill. We are voting on the general principles of the bill. You are quite correct, Mr Finlay. Please proceed, Mr MacKenzie. The Scottish Government has informed us that action is already under way to improve the quality of conversations that are held with bereaved families, which could potentially reduce family refusal rates. That seems to me to be the nub of the matter. The reason why many health professionals in this area are cautious about the soft opt-out approach is that they feel that introducing an apparent compulsion for organ donation may produce an unfortunate backlash and result in a reduction in the organs available for transplants. The other problematic area that I must mention is the area of proxies, and a further one that I think has been already mentioned about the tensions and potential conflict of interest between the authorised investigating person and the specialist nurses in organ donation. I cannot see a simple solution for those problems. No, I am sorry, I am short of time. I cannot see a simple solution for those problems. As the minister has touched on, they are woven throughout the bill. There are some very difficult and thorny issues. I think that it behoves us to take the time and consideration to resolve them in a proper fashion that will not give rise to unintended consequences and potentially a reduction of organ donation rates. Can you imagine the tabloid headlines if there was a serious dispute, for instance, between a proxy and a family? For those reasons and in balance, I feel that I cannot support the bill as the majority of the committee indicated at decision time today. I think that Ann MacTarger is due great credit in taking forward this bill. She has moved the debate and this discussion on very far forwards and I hope that if it does not pass, she takes consolation from the commitment given in the minister this afternoon. We now move to closing speeches and I call on Jackson Carlaw up to six minutes, please, Mr Carlaw. I think that this has, in the course of the afternoon, become the bill in which I found myself most conflicted. I have been incredibly impressed with the contributions of those who are supporting Ann MacTarger this afternoon. It has, as the debate has gone on, caused me to question where my own position sits at the present time. I have also found it quite a fractious debate. I understand that that has been motivated by the important nature of the content. This is, I think, the third time that we have debated this, but by far and away the most important because a piece of legislation potentially is underpinning our discussion this afternoon. However, I do want to say one thing and that is that I was slightly uncomfortable at the suggestion that any one side in the discussion this afternoon has a moral high ground. Everybody in this chamber is in favour of organ donation. That is not the nature of the debate. I think that it is incredibly important that we understand what we are talking about today is a move to what Parliament would then judge to be the best way of maximising the organ potential within Scotland. My position through this Parliament has actually been that, had there not been a bill in Wales, I would probably have favoured a bill here in Scotland because I do believe that we need to move forward. However, my position has been that, with a bill in Wales, there was an opportunity for us not just to pass any bill but to pass the right bill and for that right bill to incorporate the concerns that have been expressed to me by those who are very unsure or somewhat unsure and my own slight misgivings, which I think I will overcome at some point to support an opt-out legislative process. In that move, it has been incredibly important that we do everything meanwhile to increase the positive donation record that we have and that nothing that we subsequently do can be used to undermine the integrity that currently exists in our whole organ donation programme. The minister spoke of a significant increase in the number of donors and donations that we have seen. Nanette Milne, I thought, spoke at length about the system in Spain, which is very often one that is alluded to. The particular improvement that arose through having specialist nurses in organ donation as a part of the whole hospital process and the critical difference that that made in the overall number of donations subsequently achieved. I think that the member would agree that nobody is saying that passing this bill in and of itself is all that it's required. We need to make other changes like the ones in Spain, but would he accept that, in making those other changes, passing this bill is a good way to start? That is the nature of the conflict that I think others and myself are wrestling with, because I do think that there is much more, meanwhile, along the lines Nanette Milne has suggested and within the Government's intention to keep the whole process moving forward. I accept some of the arguments that Christine Grahame has made, although I think that the presumed consent, the words presumed consent, have been understood by those who have been discussing these issues and are more addressed in the way in which the debate is moving forward. I am less concerned by that. The Public Petitions Committee took evidence from the health minister in Wales, and I was very impressed again with the way in which they were taking matters forward, and it has been for that reason that I have wanted to see what happens in Wales to learn from that experience, to see a bill brought forward in this Parliament and, presumably, and I hope, early in the next. I have a personal concern, and that is my suspicion of the capacity of systems within our health service to honour the wishes of those who express their view. It is one thing for a whole lot of people to opt in, and for those preferences to be recorded within our IT systems and whatever else to ensure that we know who wishes to be a donor, is quite another thing when we move to the whole population opting out and our computer systems adequately ensuring that those wishes are protected and respected. My concern, not at this stage as I move to the end, I am sorry, Ms Grahame, my concern and the one that I hope is still to be addressed and overcome is the enormous reputational damage that could be done to the organ donor system in this country if we move to an opt-out system and for whatever reason the wishes of somebody ended up not being respected. That does give me cause for concern. I want just in these final moments to say that I think Anne MacTaggart has brought a tremendous integrity and passion to this process over a number of years, and I understand the dynamic that she has brought to this whole process and debate. Scottish Conservatives will ultimately have a free vote on any proper piece of legislation put before us, but at this stage I believe that the correct process is to support the Government amendment and to look for that new legislation coming forward in the next Parliament. I do not say that easily, but it is the conclusion even after the debate this afternoon that I stay with. Grateful for the opportunity to close this debate on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party, and before going any further, I take the opportunity to thank the committee for their report, the clerks and all those who engaged in the consultation around the proposed legislation. Indeed, the minority of the committee's members who took part in our debate this afternoon think that it is regrettable that those members who had such strong views at the committee did not come to Parliament to defend them this afternoon. I would also wish to thank all those who have campaigned for greater organ donation rates, all those who work in our organ donation system. Most importantly, I want to acknowledge all those who are currently on the organ donation waiting list and the families of those who have died in Scotland awaiting a suitable organ being donated for transplant. If we achieve nothing else today, and I think that it still seems more than likely that we won't, because of the Government's opposition, I hope that we will, once again, have at least raised the profile of organ donation in Scotland. There are facts in this debate about which we are all agreed, and most importantly, among them for me is—I am sorry, Mr Mackenzie, who was reluctant to take interventions for others, but is keen to make them in other speeches. I would rather make progress. Most importantly among those facts is that there is a greater support among the public for organ donation than there are donors who have got around to opting in to register. That is unfortunate, and I regret unnecessary. It is a consequence of the fact that, despite all the efforts that we have heard about this afternoon, some of which we supported in Government, some of which the Government continued to pursue and they have our support to do so, there are people in Scotland who will continue to die for lack of a suitable organ being transplanted. In that context, I find this debate this afternoon to have been extremely frustrating, and I think that it is a frustration that is being shared by some members behind the minister. In our view, the principle of informed consent is not undermined by a soft opt-out register, just as the principle of autonomy is not actually protected by the current opt-in register. At present, 10 per cent of those potential donors who have registered their wish to make a donation have their wishes overwritten by objections after their death. Whether we have an opt-in register or a soft opt-out register, Margaret McCulloch was absolutely right to say that there is a chronic need for a greater openness and discussion of all our views on what we wish to happen to our organs after death. It is our view that that major change in attitude stands most chance of being achieved by the major public information campaign that would have to proceed any move to a soft opt-out system. That is exactly what has happened as a result of the bravery of Welsh ministers in moving to the opt-out system, and I certainly commend Wales for leading the charge for change. I could, at this point, read out the names of members and ministers who have publicly supported calls for a soft opt-out organ donation bill in Scotland, but who intend to vote against further consideration being given to the bill in front of us. However, I will not do that. I will leave it to those members to reflect themselves on why they found the time to pose with newspapers and campaigners supporting a change but are not willing to engage with this bill to the amendment stage. I thank the member for giving way. Could he just clarify the SNP's having a free vote on this? I believe that the Conservatives are not. Could he clarify that Labour is having a free vote on this? The party has had a public position in relation to opt-out donation for some time, Mr Mason. The point that I am concerned with is not whether people have a disagreement with this bill. It is about the fact that some people who have publicly supported and endorsed the campaign now intend to vote against a bill that would deliver it. The technicalities of the bill are important. They were important three, four or five years ago. They were important when I supported and proposed the change. Those of us who supported it know that, thank you, Mr Stewart, it took the time to understand that systems and processes would need to be in place to make soft opt-out work. It is therefore very regrettable that anavote on the general principles, which are only now being presented with the Government's amendment, finally acknowledging that soft-out opt-out is part of the solution. No-one has ever argued that soft-out opt-out alone would resolve all the issues, but we do believe that it would save lives. I have absolutely no doubt that Labour members and other members, and I am sure that Government-backed benchers, will engage in the next Parliament with the Government about measures to improve our donation rates just as we have in the past. However, what is missing from the Government's amendment, even still, is any mention of timescales, awaiting the post-implementation review perhaps in Wales before even the possibility of further consultation on how that would work in Scotland. That means that that could not be in place in the next Parliament either. The time needed to inform, reassure and educate the public about how an opt-out system would actually work makes that the case. There are many legitimate reasons to oppose any piece of legislation, and on this issue there are strongly held views. However, the decision itself of whether or not to donate or to allow a donation to go ahead after the death of a loved one is an emotional one, but so is the emotion of those awaiting transplants. An emotion that I think is difficult for the rest of us even to begin to comprehend. On that side, we commend Anne McTaggart for taking up this issue. It is a source of very great regret to me as a supporter of her bill that it will not be allowed by the Government to be given further consideration by Parliament. As a result of that, there will be further deaths in Scotland, which I believe could have been prevented. I support the bill in Anne McTaggart's name and I urge Parliament to reject what is frankly a wrecking amendment in the name of Maureen Watt, which calls on us to support the principle of soft opt-out by rejecting the general principles of a soft opt-out bill. I now call on Maureen Watt, seven minutes, minister, up to seven minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I'd like to thank all the members for their contributions to this debate. I think that it's clear that we all want to see increased numbers of successful organ transplants for patients in Scotland who need them. I recognise the very strong feelings and the points that have been raised during this debate, but the Scottish Government and experts in the field have significant concerns about the bill and its provisions. As I said in my opening statement, the current Scottish Government is committed to taking forward a wide-ranging consultation this year on further methods to increase organ donations, including the opt-out. We will consult from now and we will be introducing a bill in 2017. While that will take a little longer, I feel that it is vital that we take the time to get the proposals right. Rushing through this flawed legislation would be likely to do more harm than good by creating additional delays and legal complexities in what is already a complex process. I give way to Christine Grahame. I ask that in the consultation, because I don't support the soft opt-out, whether it's the Government or I remember that because of the issues that I laid in my speech, she would give consideration to compulsory registration in an opt-out register with exceptions for religious or other reasons, at least give it consideration and then the medical practitioners would know exactly where they were. I thank Christine Grahame for bringing her legal eye to the debate. She's very right to have brought those things up, for example, in terms of adults within capacity. We have real concerns about what the bill says in relation to that group and, certainly, during the consultation, the issues that the member brings up will come forward in the consultation that we take forward. I would like to make some progress. Although we did previously want to wait for a full evaluation of the new opt-out system in Wales before considering Scottish legislation, we have very much reflected on the level of public interest and, along with the views of the committee, because the system in Wales reflects much of the same culture as we have and, as Malcolm Chisholm pointed out, views on this are shifting and we have a disconnect between the number of people who say that they want organisation but those authorising it when they are in that position. As someone mentioned, the youth are very much in favour of it and, as we have seen a cultural shift, we have to reflect on the public interest, the cultural shift and what has happened in Wales, so that we can take forward a bill that causes no harm. Experts are so concerned that we must not do both no harm. They believe that getting the legislation wrong could be devastating in all organ donation and it is important to take those views into account. For example, as Mike Mackenzie said, there is as yet no clear international evidence that conclusively proves that opt-out leads to more transplants. The majority of committee members just listened for a minute. The majority of committee members agreed to this point and, in their stage 1 report, said that there is not enough clear evidence to demonstrate that specifically changing to an opt-out system of organ donation as proposed in this bill would, in itself, result in an increase in donations. I will take Jackie Baillie. The minister was talking about harm earlier. Does she not regard halving the budget for advertising organ donations to be harmful to increasing donation rates? The way in which the Scottish Government and experts have been taking forward organ donation has not been for blanket advertising, but as Fanwood Taggart would listen as well, and if she had been at the event that I was at that she was supposed to be at in Glasgow, where we have peer educators in the black and ethnic minority community because we know that there is a disconnect. A large number of people who are on the organ waiting for an organ transplant are from the Bain community, but yet the number of people on the register from that community does not match so that, unfortunately, that community is waiting longer than others. That is why the peer education programme that Sandra White mentioned is so important. People from the Scottish Government, those peer educators, were enthusiastic proponents of organ donation talking to their colleagues and their families and their communities, making sure that the number goes up. That is the type of campaigns that we are taking forward that are specifically targeted. The work is going on at a huge degree in the goodwaggers, the synagogues and the mosques, the melas and so on to increase organ donation. I have been hugely impressed by the work that is going on. We will monitor the effectiveness of the new optic system in Wales to make sure that we can take account of any early lessons from that system. The consultation process will also bring forward a look at non-legislative ways of increasing donation. I think that Nanette Mill made a very important point about making sure that the organ donation nurses who are doing such a good job in Grampian, for example, and Lothian, that the lessons can be learned from those and take it forward and that all those intensive care units have organ donation in their minds when, sadly, someone is reaching the end of their life. Of course, there is new technology available to improve the quality of organs for transport. We recognise the positive aims of the bill, but there are many significant issues with the drafting that we cannot support. I would challenge the spirit scaremongering of those who say that lives will be lost if we do not support this bill. There is no clear evidence to support that. As I said in my opening statement, some of the bill's versions could actually make things worse, and that is certainly not what we want to achieve. We must consult to make sure that the practical, legal and ethical implications of any future legislation have been fully thought through. We will bring forward our own legislation, but, as Jackson Carlaw said, we have to get it right for every donor and every recipient. My members will be having a free vote at 5 o'clock. I start by congratulating Anne McTaggart for bringing this bill to the Parliament. It is literally a life-and-death issue, and Anne McTaggart has been diligent in making the case for an opt-out system of organ donation. I also acknowledge the principal support across the chamber on a cross-party basis, because I think that Jackson Carlaw is right. We all want to see a system of opt-out organ donation, but I particularly single out speeches from Kenny Gibson, Sandra White and John Mason. I believe that Humza Yousaf was here earlier. He supported one of the earlier motions, and I hope that he will be voting for the general principles of the bill this evening. We should not lose sight of why we are debating this bill today. It is because too many people in Scotland still die waiting for an organ transplant. The minister is asking us to delay our decision on implementing a soft opt-out system of organ donation. Unfortunately, time is a luxury that those who are on the waiting list now just simply do not have. They want us to take action now and introduce a soft opt-out system. Why should those who have already contributed to the parliamentary process be asked to do so again at some later date? They have given their view. 80 per cent of those responding to the bill's consultation supported the proposal. There was majority support for all of the bill's proposals in response to the health and sport committee's online survey. Today, members are being asked to agree the general principles of the bill. The minister's amendment is confused if I am being generous. On the one hand, it raises concern about specific details on impact, but it says that it agrees the merits of the case. It is stage 1. It is whether we agree that a soft opt-out system of organ donation is the right thing for Scotland. It is about the merits of the case. If the minister agrees with the merits, but she wants us all to vote this down, it is really simple. If you agree with the principles, then support the bill at stage 1. Give me one second. Experts tell us that an opt-out system can improve donation rates. I say to Nanette Milne that there are opportunities to do more. It is not just about the bill. It is about doing some of the things that they do in Spain, but the bill presents an opportunity to take that first step. The minister's issue seems to be whether the bill, as is currently drafted, will lead to that increase in organ donation that we all want to see. Do you know what stage 2 is for? To consider the bill line by line and even to amend it, in the same way that all bills can be amended at stages 2 and 3? I thank the member for giving way, as she knows that we are on the same side of the argument. Will she join me in welcoming the fact that whatever outcome we achieve at 5 o'clock tonight, that is an idea that will continue even if the member and I have a particular way we should welcome the Government's commitment to soft thought about as a way forward if we do not vote for the bill at 5 o'clock? I want to make progress now. I think that that is the view that is shed by the member, so I do not want the Government's reasoned amendment to succeed because it introduces delay, which I find unacceptable. We should not accept that there is not somehow enough time left to amend the bill. The bill is shorter and less complex than the land reform Scotland bill, with over 200 amendments before it. It can be done before disillusion. We are about to legislate on the supplementary land and building transaction tax in a matter of weeks, so there is the time. There is the capacity to do this. It is our role to make any necessary improvements. It is not beyond us to do that. That is the parliamentary process that we should be using it. Saving more lives by increasing organ donation rates is not or should not be a party political issue. It is therefore extremely disappointing that the minister is effectively refusing—hold on a second—to participate in the normal parliamentary process instead of declaring the bill as unamendable. I struggle, but this is a very first for this Parliament that a minister has come and said that it is simply unamendable, but we agree with the general principles. The minister's approach is in stark contrast to the approach taken by fellow minister Paul Wheelhouse. He recently had a look at another member's bill, the Apologies Scotland bill. Whilst Mr Wheelhouse supported the aims of the bill, he had concerns about some of the provisions. He did not declare the bill unamendable. Instead, he worked with the member to suggest amendments and the Apologies bill was passed in this Parliament last month. In relation to the bill before us, the minister is not only wrong, but she is just about alone in her view that the bill cannot be amended. There is no good reason not to progress this bill. Let it go forward to the amending stages. There is no reason why the Parliament should have to start again repeating the consultation and legislative process next session. What message are we sending to those waiting for transplants, their families and their clinicians if we do not make progress? We have not heard a proper timescale from the minister. Delaying decisions will cost lives. We know that the Welsh Government is not due to carry out its evaluation to 2017. If you are going to take account of that, which you say you will, your own bill will be later. You are asking people to wait two, maybe three, maybe four years for something to happen. According to your own organisation, NHBT, the bill could lead to an increase in 70-plus donors in Scotland, which would be transformational. We all know the devastating impact on people's lives of waiting for a transplant. Delaying a decision to implement a soft opt-out system is an extremely difficult position to defend. I hear what Christine Grahame said. I have enormous respect for Christine Grahame when she talked about a member not having the knowledge and skill to understand complex legal issues. I accept that, but the Scottish Government has an army of civil servants with a great deal of knowledge that can bring that to stage 2 in amendments to improve the bill. The minister has said that the measures in the bill are not the ones that the Government would put in place if it had introduced its own bill, but she has not told us what measures she would put in place. The reason is that the Scottish Government has not thought that through, because her official told the committee that we have not yet considered how we would introduce an opt-out system if we wanted to do that in Scotland. This is a matter that affects the lives of hundreds of people, the length and breadth of Scotland, and one that requires urgent action, not delaying. It is not something that can be delayed for three to four years if it is introduced at all. Let us remember—if they could all stop shouting across me, that would be helpful. The fact is that the Scottish Government has had nine years to introduce a bill. There has been a petition of 10,000 people. There have been previous debates and motions across this Parliament where views have been as shared across parties. There has even been a campaign by the evening times. Yet there has been no work done on what an opt-out system would look like. If that does not provide members who are obviously hoping for an imminent Scottish Government opt-out bill, the clearest indications of its actual intentions, I do not know what will. To be clear, the Scottish Government has not committed, in its reasoned amendment, to soft opt-out legislation. It is committed to a detailed consultation, so today you have a choice. The Scottish Government and all members have a chance to introduce a soft opt-out system in Scotland by supporting and then amending this bill. That is not a party political issue. Those whose lives are on hold, whilst they wait for an organ transplant, frankly do not care whether it is a member's bill or the Scottish Government bill that has passed, but they care that we take this issue seriously and we take urgent action to improve donation rates. Members have a choice tonight. Let's vote for what we know is right. Many thanks. That concludes the debate on the transplantation and authorisation of removal of organs, etc. of Scotland Bill. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. I will allow a few seconds for members to change places. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 15584, in the name of Paul Martin, on the overview of Scotland's college's 2015-2012-13 audit of North Glasgow College and 2013-14 audit of Coatbridge College. I invite those members to wish to speak in this debate to please press the request to speak buttons now, and I call on Paul Martin to speak to it and to move the motion on behalf of the Public Audit Committee. 10 minutes, convener. Thank you, Presiding Officer. On behalf of the Public Audit Committee, I welcome the opportunity to highlight our work in the college sectors, which has been a major component of the scrutiny work of the committee. I draw to your attention the three committee reports brought to the chamber today. All have their roots in the work of Audit Scotland. As colleagues will know, it is not within the remit of the Public Audit Committee to scrutinise policy decisions such as the mergers process. Instead, it is our duty and a duty that we take seriously and perform on a cross-party basis to scrutinise the performance and the economy of public bodies to examine whether they have used the taxpayers' monies to perform effective and most efficient manner. Unfortunately, in relation to Cotebridge and North Glasgow College, we found that it was not always the case. I do not plan to take us over the whole merger process. It is not something that I will dive into deeply today. I am sure that other members may wish to delve into that, but I do wish to expand, and I am sure that many of my committee members will do that. Access to the three reports that we have heard of over 18 hours of oral evidence from 34 witnesses and we considered thousands of documents over the process of the committee process. We also heard from the Scottish Government, we heard from the funding council and from Audit Scotland, we heard from the solicitors, individual colleges and individuals who worked in the college sector. The sheer volume of evidence that we had to ask to unpick during this process actually set out the challenges that were faced within that sector. Can I first touch on the report that we received from North Glasgow College? In May 2014, Audit Scotland published a report to the 2012-13 audit of North Glasgow College, which highlighted poor governance and transparency in relation to severance payments for senior staff. To give a few examples, the chair of the board also chaired the Mineration Committee and the college board, despite the fact that it did not meet for a number of years, despite being required to do so under the terms of reference from the college sector, and only it met at least once that year. The committee failed to report its decisions to the board a basic governance step that is absolutely incredible to imagine that this step was overlooked. Presiding Officer, ironically, given my earlier mention of the sheer volume of evidence that we received by the committee, it was a lack of basic audit trail at the North Glasgow College that de severance packages, which was the most appalling governance failure. Although I was not in the committee at that time during the inquiry, the poor governance and the ineffective oversight from the Scottish Funding Council in relation to highlighting guidance or of great concern to the committee, and it would only be exacerbated by our investigation into a similar situation at Coltbridge College. I have to say, Presiding Officer, that I know many other members share my concerns in that respect. I was not convinced by the evidence that we received from the Scottish Funding Council that it had in fact done anything anywhere near enough to prevent the kind of poor governance that was uncovered during the processes at Coltbridge College and North Glasgow College. I know that I speak from the whole committee's perspective when I say that our work on the AGS report entitled 2013-14 audit of Coltbridge College governance of servants arrangements was a complex report, and probably the most complex report that was placed before any committee, certainly during my experience and the experience of other members. Indeed, it was possible to spend the entire debate today discussing Coltbridge without beginning to scratch the surface of the myrado failures of governance. However, in a nutshell, what the AGS report highlighted to us and would be confirmed by the evidence that we received was that John Doyle, the college principal, used his influence and worked with the chair of the college board, John Gray, to secure a servants package for the principal that was well beyond that offer to other members of staff at Coltbridge College and, indeed, across the sector. The arrogance in the self-serving misuse of public money was made possible by poor governance, lack of oversight and, at the time, a lack of appropriate sanctions being made available to the appropriate bodies. In our committee report, we called on John Doyle to repay the througher £304,000 that he received as part of his servants package. We also highlighted, in our report, the need for the Scottish funding council and Oscar to have in place more effective monitoring. We recommend that the college governance task group led by the cabinet secretary reflect on our findings and we look forward to hearing from them what steps will be taken to ensure that such a situation is not repeated again. More widely, we also asked the Scottish Government to look at the operation and effectiveness of the Scottish funding council, who we believe did not take sufficient action to support colleges going through this complex and difficult merger process. As concerning as the issues surrounding the servants packages were to be, we committee also found that there was still work to do in other areas to ensure that the college mergers process lays solid foundations to build for the future and the interests primarily of the students. In our report on the Scottish Government's overview report, Scotland's colleges 2015, we raised concerns about the need to ensure that transparency and accountability of arms-length foundations establish carry-forward college reserves. We also raised concerns in the detail of the projected £50 million worth of savings generated by the college mergers and how the new regional boards will be supported to ensure accountability and clear lines of communication and responsibility. In my opening remarks, I touched on the upon reform and value for money. Perhaps a better phrase would be accountability and value for money, which encapsulates the responsibilities that we have as a committee to push and promote at every opportunity. In the case of the further education sector, it is clear that during the mergers process, those essential principles were not always present. It is vital for the future that safeguards are put in place to ensure that the flow of basic governance is beneath what the public bodies can ensure that they do not fail on. Although we cannot change the past, we can learn from the lessons for the future and ensure that public money is spent in the best interests for the public. We hope that our unanimous recommendations are brought across the full cross-party process of the committee and the three colleges relating to stronger regulatory roles for OSCA and the SFC, as well as transparency for the regional boards and the Amslands foundations that are examined and considered on an abode as a matter of urgency. I welcome the opportunity to set out today the success of Scotland's colleges to reflect on the need for stronger accountability and to look to the future for this valued and valuable sector. We are here, as Mr Martin says, as a result of three specific reports the Auditor General has presented to the Parliament over the course of 2014-15. The Public Audit Committee has considered those reports and published its own findings. I welcome to the opportunity to discuss the Public Audit Committee findings as well as the findings from the Auditor General. Audit Scotland, as we know, has a key role in ensuring effective use of public money, transparency and high governance standards, and I very much welcome the important work that it undertakes. It is, of course, both likely and understandable that today's debate will focus on areas for improvement, but we should not forget, as the Scotland's Colleges 2015 report acknowledges, that there are also many positives. The report confirms that college finances are sound, that planning for mergers was good and that the sector has responded well to a period of significant change. We know that colleges play a crucial role in this Government's commitment to improving the employability of all the Scotland's young people. Colleges' ability to flex to the needs of industry while attracting young people to courses that better prepare them for the world of work is excellent. Current youth employment levels are at the highest for 10 years, and colleges have played a significant role in that achievement. Quite simply, colleges matter—they make a vital contribution to our people, our economy and to our society. Their proper stewardship clearly matters, too. Good boards can support a college to better the lives of students and to help businesses to perform better. They can be a force for good—a force of great good. However, because of their vital role, poor boards could risk actively making things worse and indeed much worse. That is why the committee's reports are so jarring. They document how those entrusted with the proper stewardship of public funds broke that trust. The events at Cope Bridge in North Glasgow and at Glasgow Clyde were appalling. However, what would be catastrophic is failing to learn those lessons. That is why I am absolutely determined to take concrete action to prevent their recurrence. Although the specific governance failures outlined in the two college-specific PAC reports occurred before the ONS reclassification of colleges, the Auditor General has confirmed that new controls are much more robust. We cannot and must not be complacent. Following the serious failures of governance in Glasgow Clyde College and the unprecedented action in October last year to remove board members, I announced the formation of my college good governance task group to consider what more can be done. There is an opportunity here that my task group is seizing to extract some good from recent failures. I chaired an excellent second meeting of the task group last week and I want to thank all the members of the group for their contributions to date, including those of the NUS president, union representatives from EIS in unison, from Collegy Scotland, from the funding council, from Oscar and also from the member who is independent to the sector. The group is well on the way to producing its report next month. I do not want to pre-empt our report, but key areas where we are looking to include are, for example, the Scottish funding council taking a more proactive, risk-based approach to satisfy itself that governance standards are being met, enhancing the key role of board secretary and better support for board member training, building on a lot of good work that has been done in recent months. All colleges need to be led and governed to the highest of standards. Through my task group and other relevant work, I will ensure that we have greater confidence that the required standards are met across the sector. It is vital to realise that our ambition for both the success of the sector and better regulation of the sector is indeed the Scottish funding council. I welcome the funding council's engagement with my task group and my expectations are that the funding council will implement its recommendations swiftly and effectively. My letter of guidance to the funding council published just yesterday sets out my priorities for both the college and university sectors. In what has been a tight financial settlement for public service in Scotland, I am pleased to have been able to protect college resource funding at 2015-16 levels. With responsibility for such a significant amount of public funds, I place proactive risk management and rigorous monitoring at the highest level, and my letter of guidance makes clear my expectations in that regard. Colleges have implemented the most profound set of public sector reforms in Scottish tertiary education for more than a generation, which is in itself a remarkable achievement. The debate over structures is behind us. We must now ensure that they work to their full potential. Colleges are now delivering similar levels of activity for less resource and with much greater impact. That is surely the definition of good public sector reform, especially in the current climate. The Scottish Government is working with the Scottish Funding Council and Audit Scotland with a view to publishing data on both financial and non-financial benefits. The Public Audit Committee's three reports have helped to capture the areas of improvement for our continued attention. I recognise that there is more to do and I look forward to continuing to support the sector in the next phase. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Colleges are critically important institutions. They provide vocational education and improve employability. I know that West College Scotland is working with local employers to improve their offer. The reorganisation of Scotland's colleges has been one of the few public sector reforms undertaken by the Scottish National Party Government. The investigations from the Public Audit Committee into North Glasgow College and Coatbridge College have shown that the Scottish National Party's Government handling of those reorganisations has not really done it credit. Towards the end of last year, the EIS conducted a survey of members on those mergers and the results were frankly quite damning. 89 per cent of respondents did not believe that their merger improved learning or teaching quality. 94 per cent did not believe that the merger has improved staff morale in the college. 86 per cent did not believe that their merged college better met the needs of their local communities. 81 per cent of respondents indicated that their workload has increased following their college's merger. It is not a pretty picture. In fact, one could describe it as a truly damning assessment from staff on the front line, experiencing the SNP's reforms to our colleges. Last year, the First Minister asked to be judged on her Government's record. Frankly, on further education, it is not one to be proud of. Today, there are 152,000 fewer college students since the SNP came to power. We know in this chamber that the SNP Government has de-prioritised our colleges in terms of funding. However, it will sicken people across Scotland to see how senior management, like the former principal at Coatbridge College, played the system to get himself a golden goodbye. I believe that the former principal should return the chunk of his payoff, which was in excess of college guidelines, because to do otherwise would be a slap in the face to staff across the sector. I know that the cabinet secretary agrees with that. For their part, I hope that the SNP Government will consider how the loopholes that were abused can be closed and what action they can take to stop it ever happening again. What role should the funding council play? Was the SNP cabinet secretary at the time aware of what was going on? If not, why not? However, there also needs to be an acceptance that those mergers have been incredibly damaging to further education in Scotland. Analysis of freedom of information requests submitted by the Scottish Labour Party shows that nearly 3,500 college staff have been made redundant since 2007. The cost of shedding staff from our colleges has been a staggering £90 million. Meanwhile, NUS Scotland has said that student support in further education is currently not fit for purpose. It is essential that we want to do something for those students accessing colleges and those most disadvantaged students that we increase the support that they receive. That reads to me like a shopping list of failure on the part of this Government. It is the Government that created the circumstances that allowed people, like John Doyle, to feather their own nests. It should act as a wake-up call. The First Minister has said that education will be a driving and defining issue for her Government. Frankly, that should apply to all forms of education. The Government should learn the lessons that the scandal at Coatbridge College has to teach us all. Public outrage is more about not just a bureaucrat playing the system to line his own pockets. It is that he did so whilst in charge of a college in one of the most deprived parts of Scotland, a college that for generations has been a ladder out of disadvantage. It is that he did so while the SNP has taken an act to further education budgets. Under the SNP in 2016, students lose out while bureaucrats rake it in. It is not fair, it is not right and it does make a mockery of the SNP saying that education is their priority. When the Auditor General says that the case was among the most serious failures of governance that she has ever seen in her time, the Scottish Parliament cannot fail to take notice. Although I am also very conscious of the very difficult and sensitive issues, including the tragic death of a senior college member of staff, it is very important indeed that the Parliament ensures that all the facts come into the public domain and that it takes action to ensure that the situation can never be repeated. On that point, may I compliment the convener of the Audit and his fellow committee members for the very assiduous manner in which they have gone about pursuing the truth, often against the odds? They deserve great credit for the report that they have produced and I am sure that that will serve as a blueprint for the future. At the time of college reform, there was general agreement that there was a need for some mergers and some economies of scale, but at all times, those mergers should be measured against the drive towards better educational outcomes and financial discipline. There was less agreement about the pace of reform and how it would be handled, most especially whether we had the right relationship between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Funding Council. I remember several education meetings when this relationship was put under the spotlight and I remember the cabinet secretary at the time, very certain that the pace of change was appropriate. The college sector, however, was split. Some colleges were very keen on the merger process, some much less so, usually because they were worried about losing their autonomy and or their ability to best serve the needs of a very diverse local economy. Jackie Baillie referred to the EIS survey on this very issue. Amidst all that, you would have thought that extra care would have been taken to provide maximum transparency and scrutiny of the merger process and to allay the fears of those who were unsure about the new structures for governance. When large sums of public money are involved, it is paramount that the institutions are fully accountable for their spending but also for the way in which they make their decisions. In the case of Coatbridge College, there was utter failure on several fronts. Although, although it was, as the Auditor General said, the worst example that she had seen, we should not assume an absence of other failures in other colleges. Maybe not so much on a comprehensive basis, but they did exist and it is to be hoped that they too learn a great deal from this episode. I have no wish to dwell on the specifics if they have been well covered in recent months. For me, the worst aspect of the Coatbridge culture within some echelons of senior management was the deliberate collusion to secure personal financial gain and the complete incompetence when it came to abiding by good practice within governance and all this at a time when there was already significant concern about whether the ethics of some public sector institutions were sufficiently honest and principled. In Audit Scotland's College's report of 2015, it was made clear that the external audit of Coatbridge College had not been completed at the time of publication because the auditor had experienced difficulties getting the relevant information. Two months later, Audit Scotland published a press release alongside the presentation of its audit of Coatbridge College to the Scottish Parliament, and in it they highlighted the weaknesses in government that had been uncovered, including the fact that Severance payments exceeded the terms of the college's Severance scheme. It then became clear that that was the tip of a very substantial iceberg that successfully sank every principle of good governance. No accurate minutes or, in some cases, no minutes at all, or in other cases minutes produced some nine months later. There were examples of meetings with no agendas and where there had been a complete absence of appropriate lines of communication. Those are inexcusable failures. Indeed, they are unbelievable that any governing council could allow this to persist is extraordinary and, obviously, completely unacceptable. Of course, what has also been uncovered is the serious failings within senior levels of the Scottish funding council. The committee's report could hardly be more blunt, and I assure that this will be something on which both the Scottish Government and this Parliament will want to reflect. It is important not only that we review what happened in the Coatbridge situation but also about whether the tripartite relationship between the Scottish Government, the Scottish funding council and individual colleges is the most appropriate when it comes to maximum transparency and financial property. Whether the SFC is being asked to be judged and duried at the same time is also surely an important question. Of course, all this has had a human cost, most tragically a death of a member of staff, but also a very serious effect on staff morale at a time when colleges are already facing huge pressures in terms of financial cuts. Who can blame staff and students when they worry about the broader implications of this issue? We need public confidence in our colleges and we need an assurance that the means by which they are governed are holy water tight and in line with the very best practice that is expected. Those are very serious matters that this Parliament cannot ignore. Many thanks. We now turn to the open debate. Members were advised that speeches of four minutes I can give very slightly over that, and I call Colin Beattie to be followed by James Kelly. The Auditor General's report on Scotland's colleges 2015 confirmed that college finances were sound, that planning for mergers was good and that overall the sector has responded well to a period of significant change, and that's important. However, the reports on Coatbridge College and North Glasgow College have highlighted in both cases clear evidence of poor governance and a lack of transparency, most particularly around Severn's payments. The negative findings are a considerable concern and I've welcomed the rigorous investigations undertaken by the Public Audit Committee of which I'm a member. I would like to focus on perhaps the worst of the two cases, Coatbridge College, where incontrovertible evidence was found of deliberate deception and obfuscation by key players. Over the years I've been involved in many investigations, but I've rarely seen such a blatant and successful attempt to subvert normal processes and to seek an outcome which brought financial benefit to one person. Make no error, other staff benefited financially from the doubtful practices followed by the college, but none is so much as the college principal, Mr John Doyle, who pocketed over £300,000 in cash. That payment in part resulted in the college going into the red at the end of the financial year to the detriment of the students of that college who otherwise would have enjoyed the benefit of this money being spent in support of their education. The Public Audit Committee was unanimous in its condemnation of the practices followed by the college, and Mr Doyle should repay the money that was obtained under false pretenses and settle for the same severance terms that other staff at the college enjoyed. However, we wouldn't be the Public Audit Committee if we didn't seek to identify those responsible for what appears to be the misapplication of public monies. Mr Doyle is principal and Mr John Gray the chair bear responsibility for serious failures in Coatbridge College governance. No system of supervision has yet been devised that will 100 per cent protect against deliberate and premeditated deceptions such as we have seen here. Senior staff willfully colluding to achieve a particular outcome is to say the least astonishing, but I believe that it has proven to be a fact in this case. Could the Scottish Funding Council have done more? It is apparent that the SFC was not sufficiently prepared to manage the level of deception and avarice evidence. SFC should have been aware that opportunistic individuals might take advantage of the fluid situation created as the merger process progressed. Clearer directions and a firmer management of the overall merger process might have made a significant difference. As I have already stated, deliberate and intentional collusion to deception can be very hard to detect at least initially, especially at a senior level and where more than one senior individual is involved. Could the Government have done more? Some argue that closer oversight of the SFC might have been appropriate and that the Scottish Government had too much confidence in SFC and its ability to manage the merger process. However, micromanagement of SFC would not have been expected. SFC's role in this seems clear and no regulator in the UK has Government officials closely monitoring their activities. I am pleased that this report has resulted in the Government responding by the cabinet secretary setting up the college governance task force. The cabinet secretary has also confirmed that the Government will take full account of the public audit committee recommendations. We must all ensure that no such disgraceful event can happen again, and I am encouraged by the knowledge that post-merger such an event is highly unlikely given the new governance structures. However, the role of the SFC needs to be beefed up. Effectively, SFC is the regulator for the college sector. It must be fit for purpose, and its function must be clear and unequivocal. I am very grateful for the member for taking the intervention. As a member of the committee, I sat there thinking about all the things that the member has just said. However, I find myself reflecting on whether or not boards of such public bodies are in a good place to provide the kind of scrutiny and challenge that they should be. There were lots of board members sitting in college boardrooms who did not challenge some of the things that they could have seen, and I suspect that they could have understood what was going on. The cabinet secretary mentioned that the college governance task force was looking at issues such as training of board members, so, hopefully, that issue will be addressed. This investigation has highlighted the unacceptable behaviour of a few people in our college system, but we should remember that not everyone in that sector should be tired with the same brush. However, good guidance is required to be enforced to ensure that public funds are not diverted for the benefit of individuals by public figures who should be showing an example to the communities in which they work. In closing, I commend the good work done by the auditor general in bringing her report to the Public Audit Committee for their scrutiny. I thank the Audit Committee for the in-depth work that it has carried out in the two reports, one on Coatbridge College and the other on North Glasgow College. The Audit Committee is one of the talk committees in this Parliament in terms of the detail and the way that they drill down on the issues and flag up areas of real concern in terms of public policy and use of public money. When you look at the process and the fact that £52 million was made available to support the college merger process, it is right that serious questions are not only asked as to whether it has delivered the correct political outcomes that the Government wanted to see, but also whether it has delivered value for money. When you look at some of the detail in the audit reports, there are some areas of real concern. I think that there are questions that have got to be asked of the Scottish Funding Council. It is absolutely clear that they did not provide proper guidance and oversight. The fact that the guidance on severance payments had been as old as 2000, 12 years old and it was not reviewed, re-issued or reinforced. I find that absolutely shocking in audit terms. I think that there are real concerns around the governance and the lack of audit trail. The fact that at North Glasgow College the chair of the Renumeration Committee and the chair of the College Board could be one in the same person when such big decisions were being taken around sums of public money again is just unacceptable. You really have to wonder how that could happen. Some of the sums of money involved people in my constituency who work in colleges or students who are struggling to make ends meet would be shocked. The top three remuneration payments in terms of severance in North Glasgow College totaled £700,000. The payment that has been under a lot of scrutiny in relation to John Doyle at Colbridge has been overpaid—it is reckoned to be £304,000—a million pounds of public money on those examples alone. It is absolutely correct that the audit committee has asked that Mr Doyle pay back that sum of money. It is clear that there was collusion in order to get a good deal, but it has clearly not been a good deal as far as the public are concerned. I think that it is very important that the SNP Government takes some responsibility for this. There is a theme that has run through some of the way that the Government operates that when something goes wrong it is an operational matter that somebody else has fought. That was a Government decision to go through that merger process. It backed it up to the tune of £52 million and there were serious errors as to the way that it was implemented and the lack of proper follow-through. The political points are clear audit and financial points that have got to be followed through in terms of lack of proper guidance and lack of governance, but in terms of how you operate the college sector when we see that there are 152,000 less places than there were in 2007, when you see something like that operating it demoralises staff, it demoralises students. I think that that is an example of why the SNP needs to wake up to what is going on in the college sector. They not only need to take the lessons from these audit reports but they need to examine the overall process as to why we have got so many less places than we had in 2007 and why we are not getting students out to fill the skills gap that our employers are asking for. I think that those issues have got to be addressed by the Government. Thank you very much and I now call Tavish Scott to be followed by George Adam. This debate would not be happening without Audit Scotland and Caroline Garner, the Auditor General of Scotland. It is on days like this that certainly a number of us reflect that Audit Scotland is one of the few parts of the public sector that keep the rest of the public sector and government honest and that is what happened in this case. Their forensic analysis of what went on at Coatbridge College, which the convener rightly drew attention to and our committee report draws attention to in some detail and through all those hours of evidence, only happened because Audit Scotland did the job that we frankly expect them to do and they deserve a heck of a lot of credit for that today, not least of which is because when the then principle or the principle that we are discussing today of the Coatbridge College turned up at Paul Martin's committee, the first thing he did was to attack the Auditor General and to cast out on the veracity of her findings and to basically impugn her reputation. Well what we found out afterwards was that the person who needed to apologise for his behaviour was not the Auditor General but was John Doyle and I agree with those members including Colin Beattie who said just now that he, I don't know how he can look himself in the shaving mirror in the morning but he should get up, he should write a check for £304,000 and he should pay back, not to the Scottish funding council, not even maybe to the cabinet secretary but to the students and staff at Coatbridge College, the £304,000 that would help that institution move forward and if we achieved anything as a committee and I don't suppose we will, it would be something on those grounds. The number of us also reflected during this process while this happened and I spoke and I think some members including Jackie Bailey have drawn some of that out. Now I completely understand the fact that the then cabinet secretary Mike Russell was determined to deliver a colleges mergers programme across Scotland, he had pretty strong but he suddenly had cross party support for that and therefore I suspect what happened is that the funding council were pretty well left to get on with it by the cabinet secretary and by the government of the day and you can understand that there wasn't a heck of a lot of parliamentary scrutiny of it at that time and that's an illustration of what's not good about public policy it's actually one of the points about constantly, even if you agree with it, constantly questioning why something is happening and as others have said there is no question that because of the merger process a number of college principals were going to go and senior managers senior people in different colleges were going to go and that was illustrated by one of the tables that we eventually dragged out of the Scottish funding council on the 14 individuals who left different colleges across Scotland under the merger processes with a total of £2.6 million of public money in pensions in on-cost annual leave and various other amounts of public money that they got. Now I don't think that would be really acceptable to any of us it's certainly not acceptable to the woman and man out in the street walking down market street just now that people who people can benefit to that extent by a process a merger process that was taken forward in that way and I agree with the comments both of the convener and of other members across Parliament today who've said that the lines of accountability I'll the minister made a good point about this about a risk assessment at the end of her speech there pretty that wasn't going on you know at the start but she's right about it now the lines of financial accountability just did not happen in the way in which frankly we should expect and there's no better illustration than that than in the in the public audit committee's report published on the 28th of September into the colleges into colleges 2015 when looking at the savings figures that were claimed for this whole merger process because the auditor general said to the committee in evidence on the 29th of April that at this stage that's the 29th of April the government the funding council and the government could not give us audit Scotland the information that we'd asked for to demonstrate the cost of the merger process so it's no wonder all this was going on behind the scenes when that's when this was first considered and I would just ask the government to reflect both on the committee report yes but also on what the auditor general said about the lines of account financial accountability and the governance of what happened not just for coatbridge college but for the future of public spending in scotland as well many thanks and I call George Adam to be followed by Patricia Ferguson thank you president of officer I am not on the public audit committee but sat on the committee during the first year of this term and I'm only too aware of the work programme of the committee and I appreciate the hard work by Paul Martin the convener and others on this and many other issues as a member of the education culture committee I followed this sorry saga with great interest but the whole purpose of the reform of colleges was for them to make a more powerful contribution to growing Scotland's economy more focused and employability we are all aware of the very challenging times that we live in and the public sector reform like college reform can deliver services in new innovative ways however this this process of reform is not helped by examples like mr doil who encouraged the public to be very cynical about the public sector and in his case greed overcame practicality and reality certain very senior management putting their own financial security above that of the educational institution that they serve forgetting about the college the staff and the students involved in these major reforms at a very difficult time I found Presiding Officer this whole solid little deal rather sickening situations like this although they are the minority make our constituents in the public very cynical about the value of public service it is an injustice to the men and women who commit themselves to the noble ideals of public service it shows an individual who is looking after number one and no one else. Presiding Officer at this point I would like to discuss part of the committee's report on the Scottish founding funding councils financial memorandum with colleges and the SFC's financial memorandum with colleges states the council the SFC must be able to rely on the whole system of governance management and conduct of the institution to safeguard all funds of the institution delivering from the Scottish ministers to achieve the purpose for which the funds are provided and there's also an extract from the 2013-14 audit of cope bridge college which is exhibit 3 which the extracts from the Scottish funding council guidance on severance arrangements to senior staff in fuller education colleges and paragraph 13 is colleges have a responsibility to use both public and any private funds in a prudent way that achieves value for money now this does not seem to be the case in this scenario in other words we need to actually have an institutions management structure to be robust transparent enough to deliver the desired outcomes but mr doil in the position that we've had to deal with with mr doil seems to have been the failing in these principles and perhaps it was the principles of mr doil that might have to come into question with this in mind I commend the public audit committee on their work and sitting through the evidence that they've had to look particularly when you see the recommendation that they came up with in the report on page 45 and recommendation one presiding officer states we recommend that john doil repay the 304,254 pounds he received and that his severance pay is then recalculated with reference to the agreed voluntary severance scheme applicable to all other members of staff and even they does not repay the money renewed consideration must be given to recover it for him I think that is probably one of the most important parts of this whole scenario but I also take on board the fact that as the cabinet secretary already said that since April 2014 the Scottish public finance manual the Scottish government has put in place a number of measures to ensure effective scrutiny of severance and settlement arrangements and colleges must comply with this manual and doing so seek approval from the ssc on both severance and settlement arrangements and these things we need to make sure that we are very prudent with public money because and presiding officer we need to learn from the excellent report that we have here in front of us and make sure that we do all we can to ensure that this does not happen in the public sector again for me presiding officer recommendation one from the committee report sums up this very solid affair it's time for mr doil to do the right thing many thanks for now called Patricia Ferguson to be followed by Stuart McMillan thank you presiding officer and can I also thank the auditor general for illuminating this entire saga and may I also thank the parliament's audit committee for the very thorough and analytical report it has produced on what has been a very sorry chapter in further education in Scotland my colleague Jackie Baillie was quite right to discuss at the beginning of her contribution the various ways in which colleges matter they matter to our communities they matter in terms of employability and they matter for Scotland's economy and I was slightly surprised that the minister on various occasions mentioned their importance to young people I think it was said if I'm correct three times that they were important to young people but surely their importance is not just to young people surely colleges are important to women returners for example or to those who need to be reskilled and I'm disappointed that the minister hasn't recognised that one of the suspicions that many people in and out of the sector have had for a long time is that the 152,000 places that have been lost have been lost at the detriment of these groups of individuals but my particular concern about the reports before us today concerns North Glasgow college which was located in my constituency and in its new merged form still is I have to say that I was very surprised when I read about the scale of the payments made to some outgoing members of staff but I was even more surprised to read of the many opportunities that there were to intervene and to question whether these payments were appropriate opportunities that unfortunately were not taken the audit committee drew our attention to the fact that the Scottish funding council provided guidance to colleges in the year 2000 about how to deal with severance for senior staff it then updated that guidance in 2004 as my colleague James Kelly mentioned but crucially the Scottish funding council didn't remind colleges of this guidance at the point at which these mergers were being discussed and happening now this isn't the first time that Scotland has witnessed the merger of public bodies and the auditor general has provided good practice guidance for such occasions so we also have to question why it was not followed in this case the mergers of these colleges was in fact one of the largest public sector reorganisations ever seen in Scotland and in those circumstances I think we could indeed perhaps we should have expected the funding council to be more proactive in this regard it is clear however Presiding Officer that North Glasgow College also failed in a number of important ways as the committee says North Glasgow College fell short of the required level of governance and that is just unacceptable but I have to say that the merger was an initiative of the Scottish Government and confirmed to their requirements so I don't really understand how they didn't foresee the possibility of this scenario now where people want to do something that is perhaps not up to the standard that most people would expect they will always find a way to get round the rules however these mergers were controversial at the time and some long-standing senior members of staff found themselves in a situation where there was no longer a job for them the way in which those members of staff would depart should surely have been concerned should surely have been of concern to ministers as well as to the funding council the committee's report exposed the fact that on 11 October 2013 the Scottish funding council received a request for funding from North Glasgow College which included payment for two senior staff members on 24 October 2013 the Scottish funding council apparently advised the college that funding would be restricted that they wouldn't get the full amount they were asking for however by that time just over two weeks after they made the initial request the payment to those senior members of staff had already been approved and authorised with the payments actually being made on 28 October that's a three week period between application and money being dispersed and that seems to me to be what could only be described as a deliberate attempt to pay money that perhaps shouldn't have been paid in the first instance it should also be noted that North Glasgow College's remuneration committee's decisions about severance were not reported to the college board because the chair of the board was advised wrongly that there was no need the cost of restructuring in severance at North Glasgow College was some £1.29 million and in the end £866,000 was provided by the funding council resulting in a shortfall of £424,000 of this £240,000 arose from the severance payments Presiding Officer that might not be a huge sum of money in the overall scheme of things but it is a sum of money which might have been better spent in supporting students, widening access or perhaps even in restoring staff morale. We must learn the lessons. As someone who studied at college before attending university I've got a huge amount to thank further education for and I was happy to support the proposals for college mergers as I believe that they would introduce efficiencies into the college sector. I also believe that by removing the layers of senior management we could ensure that more money would be invested in students where the money actually should go. You'll notice that I used the word invested and not spent and I believe that every penny invested in colleges should be an investment in people and also for the future prosperity of the country. I knew the merger process would have some issues to be addressed and I also knew that some bad apples would be found as the process occurred however I genuinely was appalled by the arrogance of some in the sector to think that they could use both taxpayers' money and also earned college income to ensure that they topped up their already substantial pension pots this at a time of public constraint when public sector workers were being offered 1% pay increases. For me the fact that this information has been uncovered proves two things. Firstly the government was right to change the college structure and to make it more accountable and secondly the greed is good moniker unfortunately was alive and well in the sector and that sector was long overdue reform. Audit Scotland deserve a huge amount of credit for the reports that we are discussing here this afternoon. Audit Scotland aren't there to curry favour with the government of the day but they do exist to shed light on how the public pound is actually being spent and my former colleague Andrew Welsh couldn't speak highly enough of Audit Scotland because the thorough auditing of Scotland's public finances didn't exist before the re-establishment of this Parliament. Four minute speeches are short for a topic of this nature so I'm going to focus the rest of my comments on Coatbridge College and the audit there. When Audit Scotland report provides the following paragraph then it's obvious that something has seriously gone wrong. In their report on Coatbridge College they stated there is absolutely no doubt that there have been very serious failures of governance indeed they are among the most serious that I have seen during my time as Auditor General. Liz Smith quoted this earlier on in her comments earlier today. As other members have highlighted we decided to investigate the matter further and I would commend our committee report published in the 13th of January of this year to anyone with an interest. It was clear that the overall governance wasn't as it should be and during our investigations we asked for a timeline of events to be generated to try to actually clarify the somewhat cloudy situation that had been put in front of us. Now this can be found in an XC of our report. Presiding Officer, I never for one minute thought that my name would go on a report, a parliamentary report, which we would actually send to Police Scotland and also to Oscar, the Charity Regulator. It did and we have and it certainly was the least that we could do as a committee. Ultimately money leaving the college sector over and above already budgeted and generous leaving packages is nothing short of removing money from the pockets of students. All members of the committee were shocked, disgusted and appalled by the actions of a few to the expense of many at Coatbridge College. Our report is clear on that. Our report has three recommendations. The first one being for Mr Boyle to pay the money back. We certainly didn't expect Mr Boyle to actually do this. We didn't expect that to happen because it certainly was clear during the evidence sessions that no admittance of wrongdoing was ever forthcoming. The second of our recommendations concerns are governance actions going forward. We have already heard from the cabinet secretary this afternoon the progress in this regard, particularly with the creation of the college task force. The third one concerns the Scottish funding council. I accept where the limitations placed upon the SFC at the time and the remit has now changed with the college restructuring programme. However, the Scottish funding council, in our opinion on the committee, could have been more forceful, could have deployed more scrutiny and been more attentive to what was going on. I do believe that the Scottish funding council will have some questions to answer. I will close by stating this. Audit Scotland having covered bad practice at best financial chicanery at worst. Our committee produced excellent reports on obtaining further detail to how bad things were and, as a result, we, as an audit committee, have actually done our job. The next step is for strengthening of the rules to ensure that Scotland students do not face this financial hit at the hands of the few again. Thank you very much. Many thanks. We now turn to the closing speeches, and I call on Liz Smith at maximum five minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The cabinet secretary said when she opened this debate that it was the response to three very serious reports and she is quite correct in that. Stuart McMillan very eloquently has just explained to us once again why they are so serious. The Auditor General, I am sure, who is a very senior figure in Scottish public life, would not have made the comment that she did in the sense that it was one of the worst cases that she had ever overseen in her role had it not been true. I think that it is that alone that is one of the most important reasons why this Parliament has to take this matter so very seriously. I come back to the fact that the Audit Committee of this Parliament has recognised that, and I compliment the convener once again and his committee. They have obviously had to deal with thousands of different documents. Stuart McMillan has just indicated that some of those were of such a serious nature that had to be sent to Oscar and to the police. That is no small task. I think that the committee has done excellent work because it was very clear indeed that the audit trail simply did not exist. In fact, I really do believe that this is an extraordinary state of affairs. I will come back to that in a minute because I think that it is important how we react to that in the way that we take things forward. There are, of course, issues about the Scottish funding council. I think that it is very clear that the Scottish funding council had not done enough to uncover all the problems and to ensure that it was in its monitoring role, which I think is very important. I think that the structures of that Scottish funding council need to be looked at and the responsibility that they have to the minister. I think that it was James Kelly who made a good point about this, about what good audit actually means. I think that we have to be very clear in our own minds about whether there are structural issues about the Scottish funding council and whether we need to make changes that might spread across the whole structure for how they look at colleges and universities, or whether we feel that there have been some failures of leadership within that body, too. What we decide on that will be crucial in terms of how we react to, as I say, the very serious reports that we have had put before us. There are also issues, of course, about OSCAR. Whether it needs to have more measures at its disposal should it feel that there has been any kind of mal-practice. That, again, is something that we need to think carefully about, but I suggest that that is an issue that comes after we have examined the funding council mechanism. I mentioned when I opened in my speech that there are question marks over the tripartite relationship between the Scottish funding council, the Scottish Government and the individual colleges, particularly in the process of mergers that has been perhaps necessary in many cases, but it is certainly controversial, particularly as the pace of reform was something that was very seriously open to question, particularly amongst many of the colleges themselves. Some of them did not respond well to that, and I think again that is something that this Parliament has to take very seriously. I think that perhaps the most important thing that we can do is to restore trust, because that is the crucial word when it comes to our responsibilities to students and staff of the colleges who feel so badly let down. George Adam, I think that it was who described this as a very sorry saga. He is correct in that. We owe it as our responsibilities to students and staff to ensure that they can feel confident about their future. I believe that the Audit Committee has gone a long way to helping that process, but it will take robust action from both the Scottish Government and this Parliament to deliver on their recommendations. Specifically, I draw the chamber's attention to paragraphs 296 and 301 in which the committee asks for the consideration to be given to future powers of both the SFC and the Oscar, because it is obviously clear that the Audit Committee of this Parliament believes that these are central core issues to be discussed. Whether sanctions should be available to the SFC and whether there is an appropriate relationship at the base level between the funding council and the Scottish Government, because as Tavish Scott rightly mentioned, this is about lines of accountability. It is about democracy and it is about the transparency that we can provide to allow our college sector to have trust once again. Thank you very much. Before I move on, I can point out to Mr Kelly that he was mentioned in the member's speech and unfortunately was not in the chamber, so I point out to all members that you should come back for closing speeches when you have participated in the debate. I call on Mark Griffin up to five minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the Public Audit Committee on the overview of Scotland's College 2015 and contribute to the general staff at Audit Scotland and the convener, committee members and clerks, on their dissection of the issue. Context is important when we come to talk about this. Scotland's colleges should be the envy of the world. Everyone, regardless of privilege or postcode, should be able to access the skills that they need to get on in life. Sadly, that is not the case. The Scottish Government's record on colleges has been symbolic. As Jackie Baillie pointed out, the students' unions have said that support is not fit for purpose, while the lecturers' union has said that the SNP's mergers have not improved learning and teaching quality. College mergers are one of the very few public sector reforms undertaken by the Government, and it has been a complete and utter failure for the 152,000 students who have been locked out of college courses. A large number of those women returning to work and adult learners are raised by Patricia Ferguson. The SNP should have spent the last nine years in power investing in colleges, not making nearly £3,500,000 college staff redundant at a cost of more than £90 million. Stuart McMillan pointed out that the parliamentary report into the former college principal accused of accepting that a vastly excessive severance payment has been passed to police, and that in itself should shock everyone here. The public audit committee has also called on John Doyle, the former principal of Coatbridge College in North Lanarkshire, to repay part of his £304,000 deal. In that case, that was described as an appalling abuse of the public purse. The report also criticised the Scottish Funding Council, which was responsible for overseeing the merger process. Last summer, the Auditor General, Caroline Gardner, issued a highly critical report of the severance deal to Mr Doyle. The committee also agreed with Ms Gardner's view that John Gray, the chair of the former college, colluded with Mr Doyle, and I quote to get the result that they wanted by withholding relevant information from the College's Remuneration Committee, which approved the payment. The report said that, given the significant governance and oversight failing, the Scottish Government must look at the operation of the Scottish Funding Council and the effectiveness of its supervisory role, and that is the context of where we are today, and that the amounts involved in the failure to get to grips with the issue will stun people outside the chamber. However, how do we move forward? An apology and a repayment would be a good place to start, but I will not hold my breath. The Government has insisted that, as part of the college's task force, it will review the circumstances that led us to that point, and I appreciate the update given by the cabinet secretary. I also note that the cabinet secretary did not want to pre-empt that update, but I would ask whether she has drafted new rules or regulations that would avoid that happening again. Is there a blueprint in place for future scenarios with public sector pay-offs that could be used and adopted more widely? There was a blame game at the time from the Scottish Funding Council to officials, to politicians, all scrambling to avoid taking the brunt of the criticism. Will there be a clear channel of responsibility for the size and nature of those packages after that review is complete? I welcome the public audit committee work in this area and commend the dogged approach that it has taken to seek to shed light on the issue. There must be more of an appetite from the Scottish Government to try to correct the perceived injustices of the packages that were delivered in this case. The only thing that we can hope for is that we do not see a repeat of the shambles again because one thing is clear—the point that was made by Colin Beattie, Stuart McMillan and others—that the money that has been paid in severance packages has come directly from funds that would have supported college students in my region and in colleges and regions across the country. I want to once again take this opportunity to reinforce how important the work of Audit Scotland is in helping us to focus on the actions that we can and should take. Just to say that, when I was first elected to this Parliament, one of the tasks that I had was to chair the Scottish Commission for Public Audit, which is in charge of auditing Audit Scotland. I am well aware and acquainted with the good and thorough work that Audit Scotland undertakes on behalf of us all. I also want to pay tribute to the members on the Public Audit Committee. We heard at the start of the debate from Mr Martin, who spoke of the 18 hours of oral evidence—the 34 witnesses, I was obviously one of them—and the task that they had was to go through such a volume of evidence. I want to pay tribute to the work of the committee. It is right that college governance has faced considerable scrutiny. We must understand the detail of what happened to ensure that there is no repetition. I want to ensure members of the Public Audit Committee and indeed members across the chamber that the recommendations from the reports from the Public Audit Committee and the Auditor General are all being actively pursued. As is often the case with debates in and around further education, the debate has touched on the pros and cons of the reform programme and, indeed, the outcomes for young people and other learners. James Kelly, Patricia Ferguson and Jackie Baillie have all touched on that. I will point to the fact that this Government has more than met our manifesto commitments to maintain full-time equivalent. Of course, I will accurately maintain that we are spending more in cash terms than our predecessors and we have invested more in capital also. I will also point to the fact that student support is record high and full-time students over and under 25 are increasing. For me, the crux of the matter for college reform and why I remain utterly of the view that it was the right thing to do is that having more full-time students studying recognised qualifications that relate the skills for work and for our local and national economy was exactly the right thing to do. I have spent much of my time as a minister looking at youth unemployment. What we failed to do as a Parliament, as a country, in times of economic growth and increasing budgets, we failed to tackle structural youth unemployment. The reform of the college programme is absolutely essential in getting to grips with structural youth unemployment in this country. I remain absolutely committed to young people and to the college sector in terms of what it can deliver, not just for older learners but ensuring that we tackle structural youth unemployment. It is important to recognise that the Auditor General and her evidence on the 4 November last year, with regard to the failures of governance in this case, with regard to Colbridge College, has incurred in her view because of the actions of a small number of people. That does not abdicate me, the funding council or anybody else in the chamber for exercising our responsibilities. We should remember that the crux of the matter was the actions of a small number of people. People who ignored guidance, we had situations, as we have heard from Mr Kelly and others, where he had the chair of a college board, also being the chair of a remuneration committee, and if I can say to Mr Griffin, that is certainly something that my task group is very interested in. Of course, when the funding council did say, do not do it, do not pay the money, they were indeed ignored. I want to reassure members that I agree with the assessment that the funding council itself made that they could indeed have been more proactive. I have been to a recent board meeting of the funding council to communicate that, and I have also communicated that through the recently published guidance letter. I do not want anybody in the chamber to be in any doubt that, if and when, action is required. I think that my actions today have demonstrated that if action is needed to prevent or deal with poor governance, I will indeed take whatever action is necessary to deal with poor governance. It is imperative that we learn the lessons and ensure that the appalling circumstances so eloquently outlined by a range of members in the chamber today do not happen again. I am grateful for her comments about governance. I wonder whether she was as surprised as I was at the very limited powers that Oskar seemed to have to deal with this kind of situation, and whether that is something that we might change. Cabinet Secretary, I will give you a few seconds more. Yes, and certainly Government officials remain in contact with Oskar to deal with any outstanding concerns that they have in relation to the powers that they do or don't have. As I was going on to say, the Auditor General has confirmed that the new controls that are in place are much more robust. As we all know before reclassifications, decisions and severance were the sole responsibility of colleges taking into account funding council guidance. Following reclassification in April 2014, incorporated colleges must now seek approval from the funding council for severance and settlement arrangements. Cabinet Secretary, I must ask you to conclude me first. I am doing so is a term and condition of grant, and ministers now have far more explicit powers to remove incorporated college boards for serious or repeated breaches of those terms and conditions. I now call on Mary Scanlon to wind up the debate on behalf of the Public Audit Committee, Deputy convener, eight minutes or so. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This has been an excellent debate, and in all the years that I have been on the Audit Committee, this is actually the first debate that we have had in the chamber. I hope that there will be more in the next session. I particularly like to thank every member who contributed, and I have to say that I detected a little bit of additional anger coming from those MSPs who are members of the Audit Committee itself. When Paul Martin speaks about the hours that we spent taking evidence, what he did not mention was the hours that we spent reading the hundreds and hundreds of pages of evidence that we all received. I acknowledge Colin Beattie and the cabinet secretary's point. Because things were so bad at Coatbridge and North Glasgow, I think that it would be wrong at the outset of this speech to say that all colleges are the same. They are not, and there is indeed absolutely excellent best practice in Scotland, and I think that we should all put that on the record. We regularly debate how money should be allocated in Scotland's public sector. We do that every week, and we do that in every debate, but we should maybe be a bit more thoroughly scrutinising how well the money is spent in delivering value for money and high-quality public services. When we meet someone like John Doyle, I think that it is right that he is named and shamed, and we were willing to use the Parliament's powers to compel him to give evidence, and I think that that is only right that that has been done across the chamber today. However, this debate highlights the work of the Parliament's Audit Committee. I commend the excellent chairing by Paul Martin, who ensured a fair, thorough and unmeasured approach to the volumes of information and figures brought forward. This inquiry has shown the Parliament's Audit Committee at its best doing the job that it is tasked to do. I have to say that this Parliament is at its best when every member on every committee works together, and we certainly did that in this event. We also received the Lincston report, which was conducted as a review of the major process at Coatbridge College. I thank the family of Francis McGeehy, who insisted that the committee see this report, which highlighted that the arrogant approach pursued by the principal allowed no duty of care at all to the rest of his staff. Tragically, Deputy Principal Francis McGeehy took his own life during the major process at Coatbridge College. Even the Coatbridge College trade unions were described as going ballistic when they heard of the principal's payoff, which was far in excess of anything they may have ever dreamt of. The Audit Committee has been monitoring the college measures, but we still don't have an accurate figure for the cost of this process, although £52 million was allocated for the purpose. Neither can we monitor the promised improvements in the quality of education, as it seems there were no baseline figures for comparison. The £50 million savings that were promised are hard to find, although the Scottish funding councils say that they are on track to achieve them. An Orange Scotland report in 2012 learning the lessons of public body mergers was available to guide organisations through this process, yet we found serious issues relating to police reform, a huge funding gap in the fire and rescue service and college reform, sometimes following the worst, not the best practice. The section 22 report on Coatbridge was described by the Auditor General as among the most serious failures of governance she has seen in her time as Auditor General. At the outset of the merger process, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Funding Council should have set out the parameters in terms of Severance payments. The information and guidance was there, but they allowed colleges to go their own way. The committee report asks that the Government look again at the operation of the Scottish Funding Council and the effectiveness of its role. That was quite a stark recommendation, and I do hope that we will hear back from the Government what the plans are. However, it was this lack of rigor that allowed Mr Gray to present to the remuneration committee a severance package for John Doyle, which was well over the guidance. When the remuneration committee agreed the package, there was no agenda, no formal papers. John Doyle received written confirmation of the deal, and it was a deal, within 24 hours, and yet the minutes of the meeting were not written up for nine months. It seems that the Board of Management at the college was not notified either, despite every member of the remuneration committee sitting on the board. There is no doubt that information was withheld from the remuneration committee members in order to ensure that John Doyle got the package of over £300,000, with no business case whatsoever to support it. Even the legal advice given was based on a lack of information, given that the lawyer was unaware of John Doyle's letter confirming his severance pay. At a time of a public sector pay freeze, we had John Doyle at Colbridge College giving his personal assistant a pay rise of 19 per cent on the basis of our communication skills. This college was out of control at that time. The audit committee has carried out a rigorous piece of work on Colbridge College, and it is now for others to follow through this process. I agree with others that John Doyle should pay back the additional lump sum that he received. However, it is now 11 years since this Parliament set up the office of the Scottish Charities Regulator, and the evidence that we received pointed to the need for extended powers in order to deal with the other John Doyle's around Scotland, who think that public money can be exploited to benefit themselves rather than for the purpose of educating and training people and providing high-quality public services. One of the most disappointing aspects of this inquiry and report was the failure of the Scottish funding council to hold to account FE colleges. Their lack of effectiveness and governance allowed for public money to be exploited at Colbridge, and it is the Scottish Government's responsibility to ensure that they now step up to the mark and carry out the job that they are tasked to do. There is substantial amount of evidence in this report and documentation that we received for Police Scotland to carry out an investigation. I trust that this recommendation by the committee will be fulfilled. Finally, I hope that this investigation in Colbridge will serve as a warning to other institutions and other individuals in Scotland that, when scarce public money is wasted, you will receive a polite invitation to this Parliament's Audit Committee to fully account for your actions. Thank you. That concludes the public audit committee's debate on the overview of Scotland's colleges 2015. The next item of business is consideration of motion number 15577, in the name of John Swinney. On the Legislative Consent and Motion Enterprise Bill UK legislation, I call John Swinney to move the motion, Deputy First Minister. This motion will put a decision time to which we now come. There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is amendment number 15128.1, in the name of Maureen Watt, which seeks to amend motion number 15128, in the name of Ann McTaggart, on the transplantation, authorisation of removal of organs, etc. Scotland Bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed, we move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 15128.1, in the name of Maureen Watt, is as follows. The next question is motion number 15128, in the name of Ann McTaggart, as amended, on the transplantation, authorisation of removal of organs, etc. Scotland Bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed, we move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 15128, in the name of Ann McTaggart, as amended, is as follows. Yes, 65, no, 48, there were two abstentions, the motion as amended, is therefore agreed to. The next question is motion number 15584, in the name of Paul Martin. On the overview of Scotland's Colleges 215, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 15577, in the name of John Swinney. On the Legislative Consent Motion Enterprise Bill, UK legislation, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. Members should leave the chambers, should do so quickly and quietly.