Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you—I appreciate that.

I am sorry to do this, but it is important that we try to tease out this question. Damien, what are your views on that particular structure?

My final question on this area is about the colleges. Colleges have said that they are concerned about some aspects of the current model for funding. In submissions on the bill, they have asked whether there will be a no-detriment principle in the way in which funding is distributed in the future. Are you considering that?

I thank Ross Greer for accepting my prompt to intervene and clarifying that. I understand and accept that point. Given that any other form of scrutiny of the plan is absent from the bill, his amendment 92 is useful.

I do not intend to move amendment 334, due to what my colleague Ross Greer said about other members of staff who are employed by the establishment. I did not intend to exclude them and would rather that the provision was far more inclusive. I am sure that he appreciates that.

However, I press amendment 331.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking my earlier intervention.

My amendment 317 would require the chief inspector to collaborate with Education Scotland in the exercise of their functions, which could help build a more coherent and collaborative education and learning system, as was called for by a range of stakeholders in the consultation on the bill. I take the cabinet secretary’s point about specificity and whether there is something on which to hang the duty, so, given the concerns about the specific mention of Education Scotland, I will not move amendment 317.

However, I still think that there needs to be coherence in the system and that the current lack of coherence should be addressed. That is why I think that my amendment 318 is really important, as it would require the chief inspector to work with relevant establishments and local authorities to

“support children, young people and their parents in those establishments”

with regard to inspections. We have already debated the purpose of inspections, and given that my position on that is on the record, I will not restate it, in the interests of time.

Amendment 318 is an important amendment. It would add to what the cabinet secretary is trying to do by suggesting that there should be collaboration, instead of simply indicating that the chief inspector must have regard to it.

I take the point about this statutory responsibility falling within the responsibility of local authorities—I agree that that is a fact. However, I am not sure that it precludes the chief inspector from working with local authorities and other bodies collaboratively to seek improvement. I am unconvinced that amendment 318 should not be tested in committee.

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.