Seòmar agus comataidhean

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Amendment 225, by agreement, withdrawn.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.

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.