Seòmar agus comataidhean

I declare an interest with regard to my former employment in education.

Given the interesting contribution from Ross Greer and the openness from the cabinet secretary about discussions, is this not perhaps a situation in which, if none of the amendments were moved, that would facilitate the reaching of a conclusion at stage 3 that might bring with it the urgency that is seen outside this place to rectify the problem and provide a timetable in which all parties together could perhaps seek a solution?

The cabinet secretary mentioned the potential challenge if a trade unionist who is also a teacher is on the board. However, the reality is that a number of teachers are members of trade unions. When it comes to conflicts of interest, the amendment explicitly sets out, as I did at the start, that any interest would be declared and taken into account in the decision making.

Would the member take a short intervention?

My apologies. Paragraphs (c)(ii) and (iii) in amendment 221 are alternatives, rather than provisions that build on each other. There is an “or” after the word “qualifications”.

Your proposal in amendment 120 defines “children and young people” as

“persons under the age of 18.”

In Scots law, the rule is that, if you are under 18, you are a child. Is there not a danger that we would create a contradiction between a child and a young person and that, by doing so, we would potentially exclude either a young person and/or a child by attaching the definition of both “child” and “young person” to being under 18?

There has been a great deal of discussion about the broad range of people who have an interest in the bill. We have heard about the ability of people to sit on a board at the age of 16. We know from the correspondence and other submissions that the committee has received that there is huge interest in this area.

The people who sit at the heart of the bill are children and young people. They are the people who will be assessed and whose lifetime chances will be dictated by the doors that open and close between the end of what we call formal education and their university or college years.

We are now discussing a learner interest committee, the provisions on which require to be amended to ensure that children and young people—the very learners who are interested in this matter—will be on that committee. It is disappointing that that is the case in a Parliament that passed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 and a Parliament in which members have spoken on many occasions about the importance of lived experience and the challenges that our young people and children face.

Amendment 226 is a simple two-line amendment that would ensure that children and young people are represented on the learner interest committee. That does not mean there should be a potential further requirement for those children to be undertaking, or have recent experience of undertaking, a qualifications Scotland qualification, because I know that a significantly large number of children undertake no qualifications and their input might be interesting and incredibly valuable.

It is important for many, many reasons that we address the challenge—as it seems to be for this Scottish Government and Parliament—to open up and welcome being required to give young people access to decisions that are being made about them. Not only would they be listened to, but they would be at the table when decisions about them are being made.

I welcome that intervention and whole-heartedly agree, which is why I referred to the challenge that is posed by restricting it to those who have recent experience of undertaking qualifications. That person who stays quiet at the back of the class and knows how to turn in on themselves in order to avoid confronting challenges or being asked difficult questions is the very person who should sit on a learner interest committee, as they can say why it is challenging.

The committee’s format, and the outreach to young people, have to be appropriate. It cannot involve sitting around in a committee room such as the one we are in and saying, “Well, what do you think of it?” That is a challenge, but we have the pedagogical and social skills to interact and engage with young people to get the very best from them. Hopefully, their contribution will be more than just five seconds—it might take longer than that to make it happen, but it is important that we listen to them.

The requirements relating to regulation of educational qualifications and public sector governance are alternatives in your amendment, rather than a build-on.

Unusually, at stage 2 proceedings—I will not say uniquely, but it is certainly rare—an opportunity has arisen for consensus on a route forward, if not on a destination. It would be helpful if space for that was created by all of those who have lodged amendments in this group. Does the member agree with that?

Can the specialism, expertise and brilliant support given to committees offset the lack of expertise among MSPs who sit on committees? Is that a safe counterbalance, or should MSPs have a level of expertise in relation to committee work?

I do not know who wants to have a go at that question.