Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am supportive of the inclusion of British Sign Language users, which is why I included them in my amendment. However, the same argument could be made for the inclusion of “persons with protected characteristics”; after all, many BSL users will be covered by the 2010 act, too. It is still important to specifically highlight that particular definition in the bill.

The second part of my amendment relates to specific groups that are not identified in the bill. It is about inclusive communication for disabled people, in particular, but it could also be about communication in other languages. I ask the cabinet secretary to reflect on that point.

As George Adam knows, one of the key recommendations from the Muir report was to create a new national body that would have the curriculum function and that could also serve as the space—which my amendments would provide for—to host the accreditation function that we have discussed so much during the committee’s stage 2 sessions so far.

On the basis of the discussion that we had last week about what would happen to accreditation, I am content not to move my amendments at this stage if, across the parties, we are still open to discussing what the best option would be at stage 3.

My amendment 286 would ensure that accessibility is built into the foundation of qualifications Scotland’s work and is not added as an afterthought. By requiring qualifications Scotland to have regard to the needs of BSL users and people with protected characteristics, we would strengthen inclusion and ensure that every learner can access vital information in a way that works for them.

As for the rationale that the cabinet secretary has just set out with regard to picking out particular groups from the protected characteristics groups, I find it difficult to see that as much more than a red herring. If the cabinet secretary would like to make an intervention, I would be happy to hear it.

I take the cabinet secretary’s point, but if we do not do it here, how else can we ensure that people who are not covered by the UNCRC get the same experience from the educational institutions that are delivering to people who are covered by the UNCRC? How can we ensure parity of experience if we do not do something in the bill?

I take the point that, as the cabinet secretary and Ross Greer have said, that function has already been created in the SQA, but that is after a significant amount of concern was expressed about the organisation, after various problems with exams—I will not rehearse them, but they started in 2020 and continued in relation to the history exams. Does the cabinet secretary accept that, rather than leaving whatever replaces the SQA to create a preferable structure in the midst of a crisis, it would be better to properly set up that new structure in legislation, so that we have the right kind of structure from the beginning?

I whole-heartedly agree with the member. In this circumstance, the interest is important and, where there is a conflict, it must be managed. The point that I made to the cabinet secretary earlier is that trade union representatives are well versed in understanding that, but the interest that they represent is crucial and should not be lost. That is why I have lodged the amendment in this group.

As we have discussed, a trade union seat on the board gives teachers and lecturers a formal route to shaping decisions and addressing concerns with the education system. It provides a pathway for them to share their professional expertise with those governing the country’s qualifications, demonstrates and strengthens democratic accountability and reflects Scotland’s commitment to public services, the workforce and fair work.

Amendment 217 stipulates that a representative of a trade union that represents staff of qualifications Scotland can be on the board. This is the amendment that we have previously discussed and on which we had interaction with regard to the ability of a board member who is a member of staff to manage that conflict. I have set out quite extensively why I think that the matter can be managed and why it should progress.

Amendment 218 stipulates that the board should include a representative with knowledge of or expertise in business, industry or skills development. I think that I am right in saying that the cabinet secretary said that she would be prepared to improve or change the amendment—the wording as it stands is excellent—to bring it to something that the Government could support. My interest in making sure that the qualifications system is fit for the future, including for business, industry and skills, is such that I feel strongly about having such a provision in the bill and I welcome the Government’s offer to work together to do so at stage 3.

Amendment 220 creates the option for the board to co-opt members for a period of four years, which is crucial, not only because of some of the circumstances that we have debated at length in the chamber and in committee, but because of the pace of change in education. I was lucky enough to be elected to the Parliament and to serve on the committee a few years ago, and the landscape has changed even since then. For example, the role played by artificial intelligence in schools and examinations—and, indeed, across society—has changed, so the ability to co-opt members will be really important. It is not an unusual ability for a board to have, and I am pleased that the Government is supportive of amendment 220. That is important.

I would have intervened when the Government was discussing amendment 53, but I was trying to keep up with the other numbers and the support or otherwise that the Government was indicating. I lodged a late manuscript amendment to amendment 53; I did so yesterday, which I admit was quite late in the day, but it was the first working day after I had met the cabinet secretary last Thursday to discuss in detail the Government amendments. That is why the manuscript amendment was late, and I do understand why the convener thought it not appropriate to select it.

Nevertheless, I believe that such an amendment could strengthen the Government’s amendment. As opposed to consulting when qualifications Scotland sees fit, my amendment would have said that it should just consult. It is important that the qualifications body consults, and I ask the Government to reflect on that at this point and to consider whether we could work together to strengthen the amendment at stage 3.

That covers all my amendments in the group.

With respect to the cabinet secretary’s comments about the scoping, I would have hoped that the Government would have done some of that work ahead of introducing the bill. Given the clarity with which experts in the profession and others have spoken, it is a bit late in the day to say to a member of the committee that scoping will take too long and delay the bill when the cabinet secretary’s amendment would delay any action on that by two years. I am afraid that I do not accept that point.

On the point about getting the scoping right, the cabinet secretary will have noted that subsection 5 of the proposed new section in amendment 291, on Education Scotland, provides regulation-making powers for the ministers to provide further details, to give the Government and the committee the opportunity to scrutinise the detail of the establishment of the accreditation function and delivery and to address the concerns that the cabinet secretary has raised. Contrary to the Government’s amendment 73, which says that it will review the operation of the accreditation provisions over a two-year period—I take the cabinet secretary’s point that it could look to bring that review forward a bit, but I still think that it is a bit of a delaying tactic, if I am honest. My amendment would get things moving quickly and give the Government the scope to take the extra time that it appears to need to look at the scoping that it probably should have done before it introduced the bill in the first place.

On the point about the definition, I think that, if the substantive amendment was accepted, we could add a definition at stage 3. It does not have to be a case of either/or. However, can the cabinet secretary give me a bit more detail on her point about the specific wording and her concern that it would not do what I am trying to do? Can she say more about what would be needed at stage 3 so that I can understand what she is, I think, offering to undertake?

I am sorry. If there were a mechanism for that, I would enjoy the back-and-forth.

I worry about this. I understand the point that has been made about Ross Greer’s position. However, I have to say to my colleague Willie Rennie that I am still a bit disappointed that we are in the position that we are in, which is that there are options for change on the table just now that, if Ross Greer and others were really minded to do so, they could support. I am a team player, I understand what Willie Rennie and Ross Greer are proposing and I accept that there needs to be discussion. However, I put on the record that I am disappointed that it appears that we cannot have that discussion now and that, in choosing not to agree to the amendments, members have actively decided not to make the decision for change. I am disappointed about that, and I would like to hear Willie Rennie’s response to that.

I would hope that the Government would be able to work with us to look at such aspects of implementation. However, I am not prepared to accept that any delay here is the committee’s or Opposition members’ burden to bear. It is the Government’s burden, because the bill has been introduced according to the Government’s timetable. It has been delayed in the past, it has taken far too long to get here, and the fact that it needs more than 300 amendments is unfortunate. Had the bill been stronger, and had it built on the recommendations and suggestions in the expert reports, we would not be in this position and the Government, with its resource, capacity and great expertise, would have been able to answer all of these questions before we got to this stage.

My amendment 295 would place the accreditation function with curriculum Scotland because that agency would, I think, be able to drive forward the changes that we need in the curriculum.