Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the member take an intervention?

I am happy to have taken that intervention from Ms Duncan-Glancy. I have already alluded to the extensive engagement that was undertaken prior to my time in office, which considered a range of different bodies. There is no unilateral view on where the accreditation function should sit and, additionally, no one view, I think, stemmed from the stage 1 report. However, there is a strength of feeling from committee members on the issue, and I accept that, which is where the Government amendment takes us.

More broadly, creating a new NDPB to accommodate the accreditation function would contravene the Government’s public service reform position that no new smaller public bodies should be established. We must be mindful of costs to the taxpayer in that regard.

I would also argue that a decision to set up curriculum Scotland as a new body via an amendment without having done detailed analysis and consultation would be highly questionable, particularly given the significant policy, legal, financial and delivery risks. I will talk more about that when we come to group 20.

Finally, similar to some of the other options, amendment 295 risks the creation of further complexity in the national educational infrastructure, potential disruption to services due to the significant change involved, and potential changes in staff terms and conditions. I therefore ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move the amendment.

In summary, I cannot support the non-Government amendments in this group, as they are all a consequence of removing the accreditation function from qualifications Scotland. I ask that members take into account the full range of measures that the Government is taking to ensure an appropriate separation between qualifications Scotland’s accreditation and awarding functions. The measures proposed in the bill are significant and will, in my view, provide the necessary separation. In addition to the legislation, I have commissioned the chair of the SQA to advise on additional measures at an operational level to further strengthen that separation and to provide reassurance to the public and MSPs about the integrity of accreditation.

Nevertheless, I accept that this is a complex issue, and it is important that we get it right. That is why I have lodged amendment 73, which will ensure that the issue is revisited through a statutory review of the operation of the bill’s accreditation provisions. As currently drafted, that review would include the location and scope of the accreditation function—which was the point that I made in response to Mr Kerr—and it would draw on two years of operation of the provisions. Not only would that ensure a smooth transition to the new body and continuity of service provision, but it would enable us to consider the wider implications for the education and skills sectors. A report of the review would be laid before Parliament so that the committee could consider it.

I understand that members might have concerns about the two-year period being too long—indeed, I think that we have heard that already this morning—and I would be happy to work with members to reduce it. I hope that that answers some of Mr Greer’s points. This is a complex issue that covers many interests, and I am committed to ensuring that we get it right.

The Government’s amendment will enable us to have the detailed consideration that is required in relation to the location of the accreditation function, so that we can ensure that any changes reflect the interests of all those who use and rely on that function, which, as members know, go beyond the immediate education sector.

Therefore, I ask members to support my amendment 73 in preference to the other amendments in the group.

We have asked her to strengthen the accreditation function, and there are a number of different actions associated with that. I will come back to you on that point, as I am aware that officials are not allowed to talk in this current engagement.

On amendment 47, I am, of course, supportive of the principle that the chief examiner should have teaching experience. However, as members will appreciate, not all previous teachers necessarily remain registered with the GTCS, and not all of our teachers trained in Scotland. If someone has spent many years building essential qualifications and assessment experience elsewhere, they might not be a member of the GTCS—something that, of course, also incurs an annual fee. I believe that, if we were to require GTCS registration, we would risk missing out on the invaluable experience of candidates who might come from outwith Scotland, as we would be presuming that a candidate would have been a teacher in Scotland, which I think would be quite limiting.

I also wish to note that specifying a staffing role like that in legislation has other challenges. A chief executive is a well-established role, and it is clear to all that their role is to lead the organisation, whereas the role of a chief examiner, prescribed in legislation, is likely to be more ambiguous to people. We would need to be much clearer in the legislation about the function of that role but, at this point, based on the current role, I do not think that prescribing it in legislation would be helpful to the organisation, as that role might need to adapt and change to fit the future organisational and system needs.

As I said, if we were to legislate on this, we should be much more flexible about who can be appointed to ensure that we do not exclude good candidates who might have taught outwith Scotland.

Can I come back to you on that point? I want to check with officials in relation to an associated reporting period.

I am hearing discussion about the vision for Scottish education. The national improvement framework was published in December of last year, and I draw members’ attention to that document. It was informed by the national discussion, so I do not accept the suggestion that the national discussion has not gone anywhere. It has informed the national improvement framework, which sets out the vision for Scottish education. If members want to apprise themselves of the detail of that document, they are welcome to do so. They might not agree with it, but it was informed by the national discussion, by the other documents and reports that Mr Greer alluded to and by extensive stakeholder engagement.

Mr Rennie, I am concerned that, if I open my mouth, you might interpret my body language in a manner that I do not mean. [Laughter.]

I have heard contributions from Mr Rennie and Mr Kerr about my unwillingness to move on this matter. I would observe that, if that were the case, there was no requirement on me to lodge amendment 73 to compel the Government to look at this. I heard the strength of the committee’s feelings on the matter at stage 1 and I responded to that by lodging amendment 73 at stage 2. We were not sighted on the amendments that were being brought forward by the Opposition at the time, because of the timetable for the drafting of amendments, but I am happy to give a commitment to members today. We have to get this right. The issue that I have, which is predicated on the advice that I have been given, is that all the options that have been extensively considered carry inherent risk.

I also hear Mr Rennie’s points about the need for perfection. That is something that I would aspire to in relation to the new body, but Mr Mason’s points in that regard are relevant. I am happy to give an undertaking to have that extensive undertaking on a cross-party basis. However, I go back to my broader observation that the committee did not unanimously reach a decision on where the responsibility for accreditation should rest.

With that, and with the consensus that we want to work on a solution that works for the new organisation, I am happy to withdraw the Government’s amendment.

I am more than happy to recognise the points that Mr Greer has made and to give him that assurance.

Of course, I have been engaging with members on a cross-party basis throughout the stage 2 process in advance of today. I have not heard a clear, unilateral view from members on where accreditation should sit, but Ross Greer makes an important point. The Government amendment in this group compels Government to take action in relation to accreditation, so there has been movement from the Government in recognition of the strength of feeling of committee members.

More broadly, I have spoken about the risks associated with moving accreditation to Education Scotland. That would bring it closer to ministerial control, which committee members know is not supported by stakeholders. There could also be an issue with the alignment between the priorities of the agency, Education Scotland and the accreditation function, and there would be a change in employment status for staff. Therefore, I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move amendment 291 and the related amendments.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 295 seeks to remove the accreditation function from qualifications Scotland and locate it in a new body—called curriculum Scotland—alongside curriculum functions.

I cannot support amendment 295 for a number of reasons. The Government looked closely at the benefits of locating the accreditation function in a new, smaller, stand-alone NDPB and, although the proposal would provide an appropriate degree of independence from ministers, there were a range of factors against it.

As I alluded to in my response to Mr Greer, those factors included the fact that the start-up costs alone are estimated to be between £400,000 and £600,000. There would also be significant recurring costs for overheads and corporate costs such as estates, human resources, finance and information technology. In relation to all of those, the accreditation function currently benefits from being part of a larger NDPB. Under a new set-up and with additional functions, those factors would be much greater.

Similarly, as I highlighted earlier, it is clear that the accreditation function would not strategically align with the functions of curriculum, thereby creating unnecessary confusion within the system. We have all agreed that reform is about simplifying the system.

From my perspective, it is helpful to hear the rationale. I want to put on the record that that work has already been undertaken. Notwithstanding that, I recognise the concern that Mr Greer has raised and the issues around trust, which the committee is well versed in and which are part of the rationale behind reform. I am more than happy to work with Ross Greer on an amendment at stage 3 that will capture the focus of what he is trying to deliver, which is separation, and will recognise the points that I have made in relation to GTCS membership.

I turn to Mr Kerr’s amendments 221, 222 and 223, which seek to place legislative requirements around the experience and values of a chief executive, their appointment period and what actions they must encourage the organisation to undertake. I note that amendments 221 and 222 present slightly different options to consider. However, the reasons why I do not think that they are needed apply to both options.

The amendments from Mr Kerr replicate the values that all public appointments require, as set out in the code of practice for ministerial appointments to public bodies in Scotland, which is published by the Ethical Standards Commissioner. I think that previous amendments have addressed that point. It is not necessary or appropriate to set out those requirements in legislation, as that would mean that the bill could become out of date if the code of practice changed. Adding those requirements in isolation would also fail to recognise other important values that are required for public body appointments. The principles of public life in Scotland apply to all who hold public office, including members of public bodies, and they include integrity, honesty and leadership.

To reassure Mr Kerr, under the bill as introduced, Scottish ministers will approve the appointment of the chief executive. Schedule 4 also provides for the Ethical Standards Commissioner’s rules to apply. If a recruitment process has not identified a preferred candidate who meets the values that are expected of public body leaders, Scottish ministers can reject the proposed appointment.

Due to the subjective nature of some of the behaviours that are listed in amendment 222, I cannot support it. I am also concerned that amendment 222 conflates values and behaviours with the functions of the body, which are already covered in other sections of the bill. For example, the bill already sets out new requirements for transparency, decision making and scrutiny of how it works. I am mindful of the points that Martin Whitfield made on the matter, too.

References to demonstrating commitment and responding appropriately are open to judgment and would be better dealt with and tested in the appointment process rather than in legislation. Ministers would not appoint an individual who was assessed as not being able to deliver on those statutory requirements. Furthermore, the requirement in amendment 221 for the chief executive to have experience in the regulation of qualifications is contradictory to the provisions in the bill, in which the accreditation function is quite separate and overseen by the accreditation committee.

Limiting the appointment of the chief executive to seven years would, as we have heard, risk the body regularly losing essential knowledge—which I think was the point that Mr Adam was trying to make—which would limit its ability to inform and deliver long-term change and improvement. Furthermore, changes to qualifications as a result of the wider programme of education reform, which includes Professor Hayward’s recommendations, will take a number of years to be fully implemented and embedded across our curriculum. To that end, it would be valuable to have the ability to ensure sufficient continuity.

I highlight to Mr Kerr that statutory time limit terms for chief executives are not usual in Scottish legislation, but they are common for board members. Chief executive terms are generally covered by appointment contracts and governance frameworks rather than explicit legislative term limits. Therefore, I question the need for the time limit to be specified in legislation, given that the chief executive will be an employee of qualifications Scotland. However, the terms of appointment could be set by the board to allow for flexibility, should changes be required.

For those reasons, I cannot support Mr Kerr’s amendments in this group, and I urge others to take the same position. However, I hope that I have provided some level of comfort that the principles of his amendments are well established throughout Scottish public sector appointments.

The advice that my officials have provided estimates that start-up costs for moving the organisation would be between £400,000 and £600,000. Let us say that it is a ballpark £500,000 for Mr Kerr’s interests.

The committee has been advised by the briefing from the Scottish Parliament information centre that the current accreditation function fulfils functions at a total cost that is somewhere in the region of £1 million. The costs that are associated with accreditation would increase, because staff would have to be moved, which would impact on terms and conditions. We would have to undertake consultation with trade unions, and we would need to look at what that would do to terms and conditions. That is the underlying factor driving the cost of the movement of the function.

The other part, which the member has not alluded to and that we have not talked about in detail today, is that there is a presumption across the committee that all qualifications in Scotland are accredited. They are not at the current time. If, as the Government amendment commits us to doing, we were to look properly at the full scope of accreditation and consider that across the board, it would inherently increase costs. I hope that that explains to the member where some of the associated increased costs would be in the movement of staff and in relation to the scope of accreditation and what that currently covers.

I am happy to provide the member with that reassurance. I recall the issues that he spoke about—I think that it was when he and I sat on the Education and Skills Committee in the previous session that we addressed those issues with the SQA, so I very much recognise the challenge that he puts to me in that regard. I am happy to give him that assurance and to work with him further on the matter in relation to stage 3 amendments.