Seòmar agus comataidhean

On the intention behind amendment 318, the cabinet secretary will say that this is the responsibility of local authorities or schools, and it is not something that the cabinet secretary or the Scottish Government can do something about. Indeed, everyone around the table today has heard that quite a bit. The amendment therefore attempts to provide some sort of oversight so that somebody is at least looking at those establishments and asking them to work together for the improvement of education across Scotland.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that, in discussing a previous amendment—my colleague Stephen Kerr’s, I think—on the purposes of inspection, we talked about whether we would set out in those purposes specifics such as the experience of pupils with ASN in schools. Amendment 322 could be a bit of a compromise on that because, at the least, it would require that, in carrying out their function, the chief inspector must consider pupils with additional support needs.

On the point about protected characteristics under the 2010 act, I do not think that there is any reason not to reiterate those protections in the bill.

On a point of order, convener. Apologies, my vote on amendment 88 should have been yes, therefore my vote on amendment 89 should have been yes as well. I mixed up the amendments. I would have voted for amendment 89 in the cabinet secretary’s name.

Amendment 351 would require the initial board of qualifications Scotland to be treated as a transitional arrangement only, by putting in place processes to reappoint all board members through an open process within six months of the board’s establishment. It is an important amendment, as the new body cannot simply be seen as the Scottish Qualifications Authority with a new name. We have debated that issue at length in the committee and during this legislative process, so I will not cover it again. Suffice it to say that trust in the system is at an all-time low and anything that we can do to improve trust should be done. That is why amendment 351 is important.

By requiring a fresh appointments process, the amendment would ensure that the board of qualifications Scotland would be open to new voices and expertise. It would also help to tackle the cultural, structural and institutional problems that have made the SQA so remote, unaccountable and resistant to change.

The amendment would send a clear political message that reform means real change—that it means not just an organisation with a new name, but a change in leadership, governance and public trust. The proposed transitional approach would allow for continuity for existing learners while showing that we are serious about building a new qualifications body that reflects the needs and values of learners and other stakeholders.

The amendments to the accreditation function that we will debate again at stage 3 are among the amendments that would potentially restore trust in the system. Amendment 351 would be a good step in that direction, and I commend it to the committee.

I move amendment 351.

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

I take the points that the cabinet secretary and Ross Greer have made about the current leadership and Shirley Rogers specifically, but I do not think that my amendment goes against retaining any leadership that can withstand the process. Having seen Shirley Rogers, I do not doubt her for a second. In any case, this should not be personal; it is about restoring trust in the system.

I do not doubt that a robust process could yield the right people, either by bringing people back in or by bringing new people into the system, if that were necessary. It would be helpful for us to have a mechanism that would allow us to have a refresh at this point. Everyone might return, but, at the very least, there would be an opportunity to ask the question.

I thank the convener for that intervention. Considering that it is nearly 10 pm, any clarification on anything that we have discussed at any point is helpful.

I maintain my concern that, without amendment 351, we would not have a mechanism. Even if it were a short process, I believe that we need something to ensure that we can be confident and comfortable that the people who are at the top of the organisation that will be set up by the bill, should it be passed, have the skills and integrity, and the confidence of the public, to take forward the qualifications body in the way that we need them to, given what we have all been through.

On that basis, I am not yet convinced that I should withdraw the amendment.

We should remember that the six-month period is not the period for which some of the board members will have been in post. They will have been in post for quite a bit longer than six months, and that includes those who are being recruited to the new organisation, which has not yet been set up.

I do not think that six months is too short a period. I am sympathetic to Miles Briggs’s point about considering whether the period could be a little bit longer, but I do not hear much movement from the cabinet secretary or any indication that she is prepared to negotiate on the issue at stage 3—unless I am detecting that now.

Today, we are faced with the option that, after six months, we should examine the process and consider whether we need to refresh the board. Given that the Government has begun to recruit to a board that does not yet exist for an organisation that has not yet been established, with functions that have not yet been agreed in legislation, it is important that we have an opportunity to do that.

I ask Mr Kerr to forgive me for the rather circuitous nature of my questioning. The bill currently says that ministers “may” make regulations on inspection intervals. I am not sure that the point is to do with the vehicle. My amendment 309 seeks to say that the Government should lay such regulations. I wonder whether Mr Kerr is as curious as I am about whether there are any other examples in legislation of its being stated that the Government must lay regulations, because I feel that there might be.

I ask the cabinet secretary to give me two minutes to talk about the wording of amendment 309, which seeks to replace “may” with “must”. It is already recognised in the bill that regulations could be laid; I am simply suggesting that they should be.