Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am grateful to all who have contributed to the debate so far. I was at a bit of a loss when the cabinet secretary talked about the need for further time for more detailed consideration. There seems to have been an eternal consideration of detail, and that is what the bill was supposed to address. For the bill to say that, in effect, we are going to have an even more elongated period of further consideration seems quite ridiculous.

I am not entirely sure that I understand why the cabinet secretary is at pains to point out that the Muir report came before her time in office. I am happy to give way so that she can intervene and explain why, because it might be due to something very simple. However, I am not sure what I am to infer from what she has said. There have been repeated references to the fact that this happened before she was in office or that this was before her time. I hope that that is not some kind of diplomatic disowning of the Muir report.

You earlier alluded to the fact—I think that it is undeniable—that the cabinet secretary has shown no inclination to consider all the different options with an open mind. You mentioned her body language, which I thought was a bit cruel, as I think that the body language has been fine, cabinet secretary

I will address amendment 221 in my name, along with amendments 222 and 223, which Ross Greer has already referenced. Together, they propose important refinements to the staffing provisions that relate to the new body, qualifications Scotland. To my mind, this group of amendments goes to the heart of how the agency will function in practice and its organisational culture.

I got a bit excited earlier about the importance of leadership, but I will probably get even more excited about the importance of culture. I think that the two go together and are symbiotic in many ways. I am familiar, as I am sure many other members are, with the concept that culture eats strategy for breakfast. The best-laid schemes and plans are all liable to perish when they come into contact with poor leadership and poor culture. My amendments are an attempt to address the issues of operational culture, internal ethos and, most important, the rights and duties of the individuals who will be employed and specifically charged with delivering reform. If we are serious about delivering structural and cultural reform, we must attend not only to who leads public bodies but to how staff are appointed, supported and held to proper standards of conduct and impartiality.

My amendments in this group seek to embed those principles more firmly in the legislation. I will unpack amendment 221, which says:

“Qualifications Scotland may only appoint a person as chief executive if Qualifications Scotland and the Scottish Ministers consider the person ... a fit and proper person”,

which speaks for itself, and if the person

“has experience of leadership”.

I expect any reading of that provision to suggest that the person has had successful experience of leadership, that they have led a progressive organisation, that they have seen change managed in a whole organisation, and that they have skills, knowledge and expertise in education.

Ross Greer and I are perhaps at opposite ends of this discussion, but an issue that is regularly raised with me by teachers and educationalists is that the people who are in charge of the significant institutions that define the Scottish educational landscape sometimes do not have a feel for education, because they do not have the experience of real-world contact that the people who are commenting to me have. That view has been raised with me by a number of people whom I consider to be experts.

The person appointed should have some

“skills, knowledge and expertise in ... the regulation of educational qualifications”.

They should have an understanding of that field of interest. They should also have operated in a public sector setting, because, as I alluded to, that can be quite a different environment for someone who has not had experience of public sector governance.

No—it is evidence. It is the evidence that is presented and available, as it would be in responding to any such situation. I would not expect anybody to respond to vagaries of opinion—I would expect such things to be substantiated by firm evidence. That is a requirement of sound leadership: that you gather evidence. That may involve different opinions, but you should be at the heart of seeking evidence, in whatever form you can get it, in order to be fair and transparent in the way that you arrive at your decisions.

Amendment 222 would also ensure that, under the chief executive’s leadership, qualifications Scotland would adhere to the Nolan principles—the seven principles of public life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Those are not, and should never be treated as, platitudes; they are the ethical framework by which all public servants in Scotland ought to be judged.

Again, the bill as introduced is largely silent on those matters. It creates a body, establishes a board and defines functions, but it says almost nothing about the internal responsibilities of those who will actually deliver on that body’s mission. I recognise that we cannot legislate for outcomes, but we can legislate for structures and expectations that make good outcomes more likely. That is why I offer these amendments, which seek to do just that.

I turn to amendment 223, to which Ross Greer referred in his remarks. The amendment proposes that the chief executive be appointed for a fixed and non-renewable term of seven years. Again, that is about protecting the independence of the role. If we are serious about having an inspectorate, or any chief executive or anybody in a high-profile public role, who can speak truth to power and who can challenge national policy and local practice, I feel that, in statute, we must insulate that role from the possibility that the independence of the chief executive might be compromised by considerations of future reappointment.

A non-renewable term would also remove the risk of perceived favour seeking, and it would liberate the postholder to lead fearlessly and impartially. Seven years seems to be a reasonable period.

I am always grateful for your interventions, because they are always a novel and exciting experience. I really did not think that we would manage to cover bin collection as part of our consideration of the Education (Scotland) Bill, but we have done.

To answer your question directly, I am sure that you would agree that, when it comes to leadership qualities, one of the most important aspects relates to succession. For the reasons that I have outlined, given that we are talking about a period of office that is non-renewable, anyone who has an eye on their passions as a leader being sustained in the future will want to build in a lot of work on succession. That is one of the qualities of leadership that I would look for most in recruiting a chief executive for any body.

I think that seven years is a reasonable period. It is long enough to ensure strategic continuity and impact and to provide for succession, but it is also limited enough to allow for fresh leadership at appropriate intervals. I am pretty keen on there being lots of leaders and lots of opportunities for leaders. No one should read anything into my comments in that regard as relating to any other sphere.

Such an approach is consistent with the approach that is taken to other senior public appointments in Scotland and beyond. It represents a safeguard against politicisation—I worried about pronouncing that word the moment I wrote it—against the entrenchment of authority and against the dilution of challenge. Those are important points.

The bill as introduced is largely silent on those matters. It creates a new body and defines its functions, but I want it to go further than that. I want it to clearly describe the expectations with regard to the people who will hold critical leadership roles. I return to the key principle at stake, which I mentioned in my previous remarks to the committee—that of trust. The public will not judge the new agency by its legal structure alone; they will judge it by its conduct, its openness and the way in which its staff interact with learners, educators and the broader system. If we are serious about having a new start and making a clean break from the SQA’s legacy, we cannot afford to be casual about the internal ethical framework of the new agency.

My amendments seek to address precisely that issue. They seek not to burden the organisation with bureaucracy but to equip it with the ethical scaffolding that is necessary for integrity and accountability. Therefore, I urge my colleagues on the committee to support amendments 221, 222 and 223. I think that they are moderate, principled and constructive proposals that would strengthen the foundation on which qualifications Scotland is built. I ask the Government to consider whether the bill in its current form goes far enough to underpin and guarantee the operational culture that we all know is needed to serve the best interests of Scotland’s learners and educators.

We are always grateful for the illumination that you bring to my amendments.

That is correct. Thank you for clarifying my own amendment. Yes, there is an “or” at the end of paragraph (c)(ii). I am trying to illustrate the significance of both of those requirements. To go back to John Mason’s quest for perfection earlier, we would all agree that it would be ideal if someone had all those qualifications, but we definitely want someone who has some experience of the regulatory environment relating to educational qualifications or some experience in public sector governance. You are absolutely right.

As I said, the issue is of profound significance, because one of the clearest criticisms that has been levelled at the SQA has been about the lack of transparency and accountability in its internal structure. In Professor Muir’s report, “Putting Learners at the Centre”, he made clear that a culture of defensiveness and lack of openness has been allowed to grow, leading to a perception of unaccountability and remoteness from the educational community. My amendment is an attempt to nail down that the chief executive would be someone who is very connected to, not remote from, the educational community.

Amendment 222 would build on that principle by ensuring that the chief executive

“demonstrates a commitment to the values of openness, transparency and accountability”.

I will unpack the amendment for the committee’s consideration. It would require qualifications Scotland to have

“clear and accessible ... decision-making”.

It would ensure

“that standards and assessments in relation to relevant qualifications are subject to appropriate scrutiny”,

and it would place in statute a requirement to engage with relevant and important viewpoints.

There would also be an obligation in law to

“publish data, reports and decisions in relation to the exercise of ... Qualifications Scotland’s functions”

and to

“respond appropriately to developments in ... education policy ... the needs of children, young people and other persons undertaking a relevant qualification”

and

“employers”.

Would it not simply be a case of taking the existing allocation of resources in Education Scotland and moving it to somewhere else? That is not an increase; it is a simple transfer of resources.

The risk is that we have a bill that is supposed to address those fundamental issues in the Scottish education system, but that we do nothing about them. The risk is that we have another two or three years, or however long it is, of further consideration of detail, which I think was the phrase that the cabinet secretary used earlier. The fact is that we have been discussing this, in one shape or form or another, almost continuously for years already, and the evidence clearly suggests that separation is required.

I am also not entirely sure about the issue of cost. To be absolutely clear, I come from the background of the private sector, but I am not sure that I accept the argument that you create lots more costs simply by taking one set of resources and moving them, in reporting and accountability terms, to another body. I am not sure that I understand why, in the public sector, that would automatically create a massive increase in costs. The costs are already allocated; you are simply moving them to a different place, where they will operate separately and independently of the original host. I do not understand that argument. I would be very happy to hear an explanation, which is perhaps more granular than the convener will be prepared to allow here.

I can see that the convener is happy for there to be a granular discussion. I am happy for there to be a granular explanation as to why we suddenly have this enormous expansion of costs. As I said, I come at the issue from a different background of working in the private sector, where, if you decide to reallocate resources, it does not increase the resources; in fact, you are very strongly controlled in relation to not increasing the resources—you simply reallocate them. I do not understand what the granular argument for the increase in costs is.

I am willing to give way; I always give way to the cabinet secretary when she wishes to intervene.

Of course. I always give way to the cabinet secretary.