Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is clear that action needs to be taken. I would like to think that, were the whole Parliament to look at all the amendments, it would consider the Government’s amendment to be the least satisfactory of all the options. Given the Government’s concerns about the scope of the other options, I think that there is enough in the drafting.

I should have said this earlier—forgive me, convener, for not doing so—but I thank the clerks and the legislation team for all the work that they have put in. A lot of work has gone into producing the amendments, and I thank them for that.

I hope that, if there is an opportunity at stage 3, the Parliament can come to a view on what it would prefer.

Amendment 295 would place the accreditation function into a new body, curriculum Scotland, which would be set up by amendment 293, which is in a later grouping. The cabinet secretary alluded to that. The creation of curriculum Scotland as a stand-alone body is probably my preferred option, because Ken Muir said in his report that we should set up an agency to comprise the current support and improvement functions of Education Scotland and the SQA’s accreditation regulation directorate. My amendments would do that.

The amendments in the later groups explain what I think the functions of that organisation could be, and I will save that discussion for later. However, there is scope for some regulation-making powers—I take the points that the cabinet secretary makes about potential consultation and scope.

Far from duplicating any processes, it would bring to the system the coherence that all the experts talked about in their evidence to this committee and that Ken Muir mentioned in his report. I keep referring to that report, but I think that most people around the table will accept that it has been pivotal to this discussion.

I think that this move would allow us to do what we really need to do: reform the functions, ensure that the accreditation function is separated from the SQA—or qualifications Scotland, which the bill would set up—and bring the curriculum to the forefront of things. We know the situation with assessment just now. Indeed, one of the reasons for Professor Hayward’s review is the fact that a lot of the teaching that goes on in schools is driven by exams. The member has heard evidence to that effect.

The curriculum has to be driven by what young people in Scotland will need in the future to contribute to society in whatever way they wish as adults. That will require the curriculum not to be driven by exams; in fact, exams will have to work very differently to how they work just now. I think that my suite of amendments would ensure that.

I realise that I am straying into arguments that I will be making in respect of the later groupings on curriculum Scotland, but we have to accept that, as countless reports have said, the structures are not right. We know that the distance between front-line professionals and Government decision making is quite big, and the ground between is cluttered. My amendments try to give the Government a suite of options to bring more coherence to the system, and I would like to think that we could find some support for them at this stage.

I will conclude—you will be pleased to hear, convener—by saying that amendments 115, 116, 118, 122 to 124, 126, 127, 132 to 134, 137, 139 and 206, all of which have been lodged and spoken to by Willie Rennie and all of which I support, are consequential to the options presented in amendments 291, 295 and the other amendments in the group. I encourage members across the committee to accept that there are several options in front of us for doing what we know pupils, staff, trade unions and experts want us to do—to separate the accreditation function from the SQA and qualifications Scotland in order to restore trust in the system.

First, I apologise to my colleague Martin Whitfield, whose amendment 226 I overlooked in my opening remarks. I think that it is safe to say that it is a good amendment, for all the reasons that he set out, and I would support it.

I have listened carefully to what members have suggested. I will, therefore, seek to withdraw amendment 225, on the basis of what I think is an offer to work at stage 3 to address the issues that I highlighted with regard to ensuring that people with protected characteristics, people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and care-experienced people have been taken into account, and that due regard is paid to those groups.

I think that that speaks to the discussion between Willie Rennie and Martin Whitfield just now about the young person at the back of the room who has not necessarily been heard; my intention, through amendment 225, was to try to ensure that they are considered in that respect. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw amendment 225 at this point and bring it back with—I hope—the Government’s support.

Is it okay to do all the amendments now, convener?

I will not seek to move amendment 227 at this stage, not necessarily for the reasons that the Government and Ross Greer have set out in relation to the involvement of parents on the committee, but because of the point about broadening the definition and being more inclusive to include carers, as well as, presumably, parents and guardians of carers.

However, it is important that parents are represented, and by bringing the amendment back at stage 3 we could perhaps address the issue that Ross Greer highlighted. By that point, we will know what the situation is with the strategic advisory council, and the amendment would, at that stage, at least give us some provision—I do not want to say that it would be a fall-back, because I think that it is a really good amendment, and parents should be on the committee. Nevertheless, bringing back the amendment at stage 3 will allow for two things: it will enable me to tidy it up and include language around carers to be inclusive in that respect, and we will also, at that point, have a clearer picture of what is happening with the strategic advisory council.

I will, therefore, not seek to move amendment 227. The discussion between Willie Rennie and Martin Whitfield has been helpful and important, and there was a lot in that conversation to instruct how we do business in this Parliament.

I also support amendment 32. I would be keen to progress amendment 228, in my name, at this stage, so I will move it when we come to that point.

Amendment 225, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 49 moved—[Jenny Gilruth].

Along with me, the member will have sat through several evidence sessions that the committee has held with stakeholders. As well as hearing the same evidence from stakeholders as the member has heard in committee, which I think is reflected in the amendments that we have lodged, I have engaged with Education Scotland, the SCQF Partnership, previous inspectors and Ken Muir, as well as pupils, parents and the profession. As the member would expect, I have engaged widely on my proposal. Giving Education Scotland the accreditation function would ensure that we had a robust and respected qualifications system in which the awarding body was not marking its own homework.

Contrary to the cabinet secretary’s concerns about resourcing, I think that there are ways and means—as my colleague Stephen Kerr said—of ensuring that there could be a simple transfer of resources. The resource implications of my proposal should not preclude it from being an option. For the sake of clarity, I point out that the transfer of the accreditation function that amendment 291 provides for would not apply to the accreditation of degrees.

Thank you, convener. I was a bit premature when I intervened earlier—I should have said good morning to the cabinet secretary. Thank you for appearing before us, cabinet secretary.

I am quite disappointed that, on one of the most contested aspects of this version of the Government’s bill, the cabinet secretary has set out that the Government is not prepared to accept any amendments other than its own. That is not in the spirit of how I thought the cabinet secretary was engaging in this process, nor is it what the people who gave evidence to the committee would have been expecting. Indeed, some other committee members have surprised me slightly by their approach, too.

This issue really gets to the heart of why we are here and why we have this bill. To say that the bill has been a long time in coming is a bit of an understatement. The cabinet secretary has rightly pointed out that it predates her time in office, and it predates that of a previous cabinet secretary, too. In fact, it goes back to the current First Minister’s own bill, which did not succeed. It has been quite a long period of time, during which learners, staff in schools and staff in the SQA and all the other education bodies in Scotland have been left in limbo. Therefore, for the cabinet secretary to come here with an amendment that merely puts them into limbo for another two years is not, in my view, satisfactory.

The case for separating the accreditation function from qualifications Scotland has been made not just by people who have given evidence to the committee, but by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Professor Muir and, indeed, other Government advisers. However, the bill does not implement any meaningful reform in that regard, nor does it address some of the issues of credibility—or incredibility, if that is a better way to describe it—that have arisen as a result of some of the practices of the SQA, which my colleague Ross Greer has alluded to, not least the 2020 exam debacle, in which the poorest students were downgraded.

The profession, pupils and experts have all spoken with clarity on the matter. They have all said that the failure to separate the accreditation function makes the bill process a bit of a performative exercise and means that it stops short of meaningful reform. Allowing the new agency to mark its own homework would damage credibility. We need to restore credibility to the system, which is what my amendments and those in the name of Willie Rennie, which I support, would do.

The good thing about this group of amendments is that it gives the Government a lot of options, so it is disappointing for the Government to say that it will not pick any of those but will instead go with a two-year review. My amendment 291 would give Education Scotland the accreditation function, and amendment 357 is consequential to that. Amendment 292 would place a duty on Education Scotland to prepare and publish an annual report, in line with its having the accreditation function. As has previously been said, the purpose of those amendments is to provide the separation of functions that was suggested in Ken Muir’s report “Putting Learners at the Centre”.

If Jackie Dunbar lets me get to the end of what the amendment does, I will let her in then.

I think that amendment 295 presents opportunities arising from the extensive research carried out by a lot of the reviews, not just Ken Muir’s. I am thinking of, for example, the national conversation’s review of education and others. It could ensure that the expertise of subject specialists and the needs and views of young people are taken into account when the curriculum is being developed, and I think that placing the accreditation function with the new body would bring some really useful coherence to the system.

If curriculum Scotland had that function, it would kill two birds with one stone—for want of another way of describing it—and it is probably the most cost-effective way of doing everything suggested in Ken Muir’s “Putting Learners at the Centre” report. I also think that it would ensure that qualifications are developed and accredited in conjunction with the aspirations and ambitions of the national curriculum.

That is okay, convener. I was about to make a similar point. Nobody really wants to end up at a tribunal. Parents, local authorities, young people and even you, I am sure, do not want to end up there, but the reality is that, in some cases, that is what needs to happen. That mechanism is there because there must be something that enables people to uphold their rights. Are you considering what you can do to bring some systemic policy change to light, in the absence of what might otherwise be a relatively valuable legal ruling?

The issue is not so much about the pilot and its scalability at this point, as the pilot is still on-going. The point is that, during the process, organisations said that one of the issues that would always make the work difficult to do, even if the pilot was found to be good and useful, was that there is not an ease of data sharing.

We are trying to get a commitment from the cabinet secretary. We have previously been under the impression that the Government was considering the idea of a unique learner number. That was for a number of reasons, not least in the light of the Hayward review and in relation to the issue that we are discussing today. That is why I have raised the matter today, when we are talking about data sharing.

To be really clear, can the cabinet secretary confirm that the Government will now engage the Information Commissioner in considering whether a unique learner number would potentially be something that it could bring in, for data sharing and for other purposes?

Sorry, but I am finding this a little bit frustrating. I am not talking about any action that the Government takes on this being contingent on the learning from the pilot. In the discussion that the committee had, it was put to us that the ULN could be one solution not only in relation to the pilot in the north-east but in other areas, including in relation to what Hayward suggested in the review.

The minister said, “We have looked at it, but we cannot do it, but we are not sure why we cannot do it”—I have to say that he was not all that clear—but now, the Information Commissioner’s Office has said that the Government has not discussed the matter with it. I am trying to get some recognition of that and to give the Government an opportunity to say that it will now consider the suggestion, given that there was some acceptance from the minister that it might be useful. In fact, the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise also said that.

This is an opportunity for the Government to say that it will look at the matter and will engage with the Information Commissioner’s Office, regardless of what happens with the pilot. The pilot could be helpful in that regard, but pursuing the ULN issue is not necessarily contingent on the pilot.