Seòmar agus comataidhean

—and we have all agreed that it is a good idea to try to find the children and young people who we need to help.

You mentioned the evidence that we have received from Mr Dey. It is quite a complex matter. Is the bill the place for addressing it, or is it better for Mr Dey to do something and come back with a complex idea of how we can address the issue?

I am with Willie Rennie on the idea that the SQA has changed and things have moved on. A lot of what we are discussing and a lot of the amendments are a result of pushback because of the historical position that we have had with the SQA.

With the amendments in this group, I know that you are trying to find a solution to a perceived issue, but is it not too much to create another body or appoint a new individual? I am checking whether this is in the amendments, but would the role be created through the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body? From looking at the amendment, I cannot see that, and I have concerns about how the individual would themselves be scrutinised. They could be so independent that they would be a lone wolf.

During the bill’s progress through stage 1, I said that the education landscape is already like an MGM musical in full Technicolor—Ross Greer used a similar line the other day. It is massive—

My point is whether we think that it is right to add another body rather than fix what we have already. The whole idea is about relationships. You cannot legislate for relationships when trying to make things work. I hear what the convener says, but I still feel that this is overlegislating for the sake of it.

I looked at the amendment and all the evidence from stage 1. Is there anything from stage 1 that you can point to? Even Ken Muir said that it would probably cause more confusion.

I am sorry, but may I intervene again?

This is my question: I pointed out something that Professor Muir said, so can you, Mr Kerr, point out something from stage 1 that backs your position?

I understand where Pam Duncan-Glancy is trying to go, but alarm bells start going off in my head—that might say a lot about me—when I hear people making suggestions that might make things more complicated. Might the proposal end up making the consultation a tick-box exercise? Might we end up in a situation in which the structure is so tight that we cannot get things done, as people will end up reporting things instead of doing the work? The issue of proposals making things so tight that flexibility is lost is a concern that I have in relation not only to this bill but to just about every bit of legislation that I see.

On the more positive side, what if the said individual, after seven years, is doing a fantastic job and has all the leadership requirements that Mr Kerr is looking for? All of a sudden, they cannot stand any more and continue with the job that they are doing. Would that not limit the individuals, in terms of people with the ability who might want to go for the role?

From my perspective, it seems that you have already cut out quite a few people who would actually go for the role. I remember my time in public appointments in the local council, where a submarine commander applied for every senior job in the council. I am not sure whether he had the leadership qualities, or whether he could pick up the bins on time, but the whole idea is that there are people who have leadership qualities and could possibly bring something other than education experience to the role.

I appreciate that I have gone off at a tangent from my initial question, but Mr Kerr knows what I am like. There are other people who may have the leadership qualities for the role. Would your amendments not limit the potential for qualifications Scotland to appoint a dynamic person who had the skills to take the organisation forward?

Thank you, convener.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. It is funny; no matter how long I have been here, it never ceases to amaze me how we can all sit through the same evidence sessions and have vastly different views on what the actual evidence said.

At the very first meeting that we had on this subject—which was on 6 March, with the academics—Professor Thomas Horsley said that the UK internal market act framework was imposed without consensus from all the constituent parts. That backs up a lot of what you have said today. He also said that the UK Government has a problematic role as both regulator and central gatekeeper, which is another key issue that a lot of people have brought up in evidence. Professor Jo Hunt said that, with the UK internal market act, there was hasty implementation without proper stakeholder consultation, and that the top-down control undermines the devolution principle—and the evidence goes on.

The point that I am making is that it is amazing how we can sit through all this evidence and all come up with different things—but that is politics for you; people will do that.

What I got from businesses, particularly at last week’s meeting, was that they just want politicians to get on with it and tell them the rules and regulations. They see some problems with the UK internal market act, and they see the UK as a massive market and as part of their business, but they just want us to get on with it. I asked whether they believed that politicians should just get on with working together to create common frameworks, do exactly as Mr Harvie has said, and negotiate—a word that seems to be foreign throughout the world these days—and come to some kind of compromise. Surely that is the sensible way to go about business—the sensible way to do this—and the evidence that we have received backs that up.