Seòmar agus comataidhean

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].

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.

Does the cabinet secretary recognise that trade unions already have representatives on boards, such as is being proposed here, and that they are well versed in managing those kinds of conflicts of interest and could be a beneficial addition because they work in the organisation, they have direct experience of what it is like to work in that organisation and they represent the trade union? Does the cabinet secretary not recognise that those members are well placed to manage such a conflict of interest but also to bring that richness of information about what it is like to work there?

Given the difference, I do not think that it would be beyond the will or wit of Government to move staff with the necessary capabilities.

Moreover, surely it is sensible to put accreditation in the office of the chief inspector rather than leave it in the qualifications body, where there would be zero difference and which is far more about marking its own homework. The cabinet secretary appears to be suggesting that there is a difference, so that could be a useful separation.

I am sure that I will have an opportunity to explain a wee bit more shortly, but does the cabinet secretary accept that the Government’s chosen expert—Professor Ken Muir, who published a report on the matter—does not share the concerns about those two functions being in the same body? Why does the Government not agree with the expert?

I have to say that I share the member’s concerns about the willingness to do anything different at stage 3. I do not think that the cabinet secretary has indicated at all that any of the other options for change will be considered—[Interruption.]

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.

The member makes a strong case, but can I clarify whether he intends to support our amendments on the representation of trade unions on the board?

As we have discussed this morning and during the committee’s consultation on the bill, it is recognised that our qualifications system must reflect the diversity among all of Scotland’s learners, including in relation to those who sit at the table. Amendment 225 would address how qualifications Scotland would listen to, learn from and work with people who will be most affected by its decisions.

We can probably all agree that people who are affected by such decisions have not always been listened to optimally and that we need to address that, so amendments in that regard will be incredibly important. Strong governance comes not from the boardroom alone but from inclusive structures that bring in the lived experience of learners, educators, parents and communities. That is why the committees and their structures that are set out in the bill are crucial and why it is important that we discuss who will be on those committees and how they will operate.

The amendments reflect a shared understanding that participation should be built into the fabric of the new agency—not just as a principle but as a practice—and that the diversity of everybody in the system should be reflected. If we are serious about equity and fairness in education, the way in which the new qualifications body will make decisions must be inclusive, transparent and collaborative. That principle is at the heart of the group of amendments that we are discussing. The amendments differ in their specific proposals, but I think that they are all united in a common goal, which is to strengthen the legitimacy and responsiveness of qualifications Scotland by embedding representation, accountability and consultation in its structures.

Amendment 225, in my name, would ensure that, when appointing members to its committees, qualifications Scotland “must have regard” to representing the interests of those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, those from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds and those who are care experienced. The amendment speaks to some of the serious concerns about Scotland’s education system in recent years. It will ensure that the learners who most need the qualifications system to work for them and be responsive to their needs and those who are usually underrepresented—not just in relation to qualifications but in staff bodies like qualifications Scotland—are carefully considered when members are being appointed to committees.

Amendment 225 presents an opportunity for that expertise to be right at the centre of committees, and it speaks to the principle that there should be nothing about us without us when it comes to care-experienced people, people with protected characteristics and people with socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds—I have mentioned it previously, but there is probably merit in mentioning again that the group of people who have experienced socioeconomic disadvantage is feeling particularly let down, given what happened in 2020. That should be the case for all public bodies that we set up, and amendment 225 is an attempt to make sure that qualifications Scotland serves all Scotland’s learners.

Amendment 227 would require the learner interest committee to include a representative of the parents of children and young people who were undertaking a relevant qualifications Scotland qualifications. That would mean that qualifications Scotland would benefit from the expertise of parents, who, if I am honest, felt a bit out of the loop with the bill. The amendment would give them the opportunity to have their rightful seat at the table to shape and improve the work of qualifications Scotland.

I understand what my colleague Ross Greer is seeking to achieve with amendments 50 and 120. In some ways, they are a bit circular in relation to consultation, given all the different groups and committees that are listed. I know that he is trying to make sure that everything is collaborative, but I wonder whether the amendments might have overstretched. On amendment 120, students who take advanced highers or do apprenticeships should be engaged and represented on the committee, but I am not sure that the wording of the amendment would allow for that. I suspect that that is not deliberate.

Amendment 228 would require qualifications Scotland’s teacher and practitioner interest committee to include a number of representatives to ensure that the views of trade unions and key education stakeholders were heard on it, including

“one or more persons who are representatives of an education trade union operating in Scotland ... one or more persons with knowledge in the areas which are the subject of Qualifications Scotland qualifications ... one or more persons with knowledge of business and industry”

and

“a representative of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland”.

I will take a moment to talk about that. Given the relationships between local authorities, the Government, schools and the education structures, it is really important that we make sure that there is that representation. The same goes for Colleges Scotland, the SFC, Skills Development Scotland and Universities Scotland, which all have an interest here. I appreciate that I have listed a lot of people, but a lot of people have a stake and an interest in the matter. All the organisations that are mentioned in amendment 228 have a stake in our education system succeeding, being on the front foot, being fleet of foot and being world leading again, so I encourage members to support my amendments in the group.

I move amendment 225.