Seòmar agus comataidhean

The other issue relates to protected characteristics. We need to be mindful that there are a number of different protected characteristics. I am more than happy to engage with Ms Duncan-Glancy on the definition and how we can clarify that, but we have issues about supporting the current wording without having that clarity. From my perspective, I also need to be mindful of legislative competence. However, I am more than happy to engage with her on that point. I have spoken to the issues with the terminology.

Mr Greer has lodged two alternative packages of amendments to ensure that the membership of the learner interest committee includes children and young people. I encourage members to support amendments 119 and 120.

Amendment 119 provides that the learner interest committee must be entirely comprised of those who are undertaking or have recent experience of undertaking qualifications. It will prevent qualifications Scotland staff from being members of the committee. It also provides that one member of the board of qualifications Scotland may be appointed if they represent learner interests on the board; they must act as a co-convener of the committee and they will not be entitled to vote.

Amendment 120 specifies that “children and young people” will be defined as

“persons under the age of 18”.

I ask Mr Greer and Mr Whitfield, who has lodged a similar alternative amendment, not to move amendments 1 and 226, which are concerned with ensuring the inclusion of a majority of persons undertaking, or with recent experience of undertaking, qualifications and the inclusion of children and young people. I believe that the purpose of those amendments is satisfied by amendments 119 and 120, which go much further in providing that the committee consists entirely of those undertaking, or with recent experience of undertaking, qualifications and that it includes children and young people.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 227 would require parents to be members of the learner interest committee. I agree that parents have a role to play in their children’s attainment of qualifications, and, for that reason, I have lodged an amendment that ensures that parents will be consulted on the creation of the learner charter. However, I do not believe that it is appropriate for parents to be represented on a committee that is designated for those who are undertaking qualifications, so I do not support amendment 227.

I also urge caution with regard to the language that we use when referring to parents. It is important that we are as inclusive as possible and that we acknowledge that many young people are care experienced and are represented by carers or other parties. Any use of the word “parent” in legislation should be accompanied by the word “carer”.

On the membership of the teacher and practitioner interest committee, Mr Greer has again lodged what I see as a cohesive package that strengthens the committee’s membership structure and mirrors the provisions in amendment 119 for the learner interest committee. I ask members to support amendment 121, for the same reasons why I believe that amendment 119 should be supported. It ensures that the voting membership of the teacher and practitioner interest committee is made up entirely of those who have current or recent experience of delivering teaching or training for qualifications. The committee will be supported by a non-voting board member to ensure that there is an effective relationship between the board and the committee more broadly.

Mr Greer’s amendment 51 prescribes that a teacher who is in training be on the committee. That is a valuable addition in principle, but the provision could create administrative issues with regard to maintaining membership, given that the duration of training, such as for the postgraduate diploma, could be as short as 10 months. If Mr Greer still wishes to pursue the matter, I am keen to work with him ahead of stage 3 to achieve the effect that he is looking for.

In amendment 228, Ms Duncan-Glancy also seeks to set out membership in a much more prescriptive way. Although I agree that the stakeholders named in the amendment have roles to play in advising qualifications Scotland, their position on the committee as stakeholder organisations could undermine the principle that the committee is about bringing the teacher and practitioner experience to the fore. Therefore, I do not think that it is appropriate for organisational and strategic stakeholders such as the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, Colleges Scotland, Universities Scotland, the SFC and SDS to have seats on the teacher and practitioner interest committee. Although I am unable to support the amendment, I assure members that I fully expect the stakeholders that are listed in the amendment to have seats on the strategic advisory council. I will speak to that in more detail when we come to group 13. I fully intend to work with members on how we can get the membership model for the council right.

Mr Greer has lodged several amendments that support more effective reporting lines and consultation opportunities for the interest committees. Those amendments very much reflect how I envisaged the committees working, so I encourage members to support amendments 32, 33, 50 and 52.

I have lodged amendment 49 to set out a new provision that is designed to support the staff of qualifications Scotland. The amendment works in connection with the amendments in group 3 that require the member of the board who was appointed to provide knowledge of staff interests to ensure effective consultation with the staff of that organisation. Public bodies have the ability to establish staff governance-focused committees to advise the board. Those committees are an effective way to engage with staff, trade unions and the wider organisation on the issues that most affect staff. Although I do not wish to prescribe that such a committee be set up, because that would, rightly, be for the organisation and staff to decide, in the event that such a committee were set up, it feels essential that it would be convened by the member who was appointed to the board to reflect staff interests. My amendment 49 would require that, so I ask members to support it.

The member has raised a number of issues. On the point that she made at the start of her contribution, the bill does not go back to the current First Minister’s time as education secretary. The issues that the member has talked about in relation to the pandemic and, of course, the report from Professor Muir were the catalysts for change in the education system, which have led, ultimately, to the bill that we are discussing today.

The proposed moving of the accreditation function to Education Scotland would have a resourcing implication. I have set out some of the costs that we think would be associated with that, but I have not yet heard the member reflect on the scope of what her proposal with regard to accreditation would include. It would be helpful to hear about that. In its letter to the committee, the SCQF Partnership is clear about the need for an evidence-based approach. Not all qualifications in Scotland are accredited at the current time. If we were to consider accrediting all qualifications, including all those that are currently delivered in schools, that would necessarily increase the associated costs. Such matters have not been considered in the round, which is why the Government’s amendment 73 seeks to give us the time to do that. I hope that the member will reflect on that.

More broadly, if I were to accept amendment 291—I do not think that accreditation should sit with Education Scotland, because the nature of accreditation is not really in the spirit of what Education Scotland, as an executive agency of ministers, delivers at the moment; that would bring accreditation much closer to Government—the process of education reform would be delayed, because we have not undertaken the associated scoping that would sit with that work. Therefore, the member’s proposal would delay the bill’s delivering on what stakeholders expect us to deliver on.

As cabinet secretary, I am constantly being asked to move forward on the bill at pace, and I hope that the member will recognise that such a move at this point in the day, at stage 2 of the bill’s consideration, would delay education reform. However, I accept the strength of feeling on accreditation. In that regard, with amendment 73, the Government has moved on a previous decision that was taken before my time. I have also said to Mr Greer that I am happy to work on a cross-party basis in advance of stage 3 to make sure that we get this right and to compel the Government to look again at accreditation.

I hope that the member recognises the challenge that would be involved in the Government moving, at stage 2, on an issue on which I do not think we have conducted the necessary scoping or assessed the resource implications.

Mr Greer’s amendment 2 calls for the addition to the bill of a founding principle for qualifications Scotland. This founding principle is stated as supporting and providing for those who are undertaking a qualification and those who are delivering a qualification in Scotland. I have a number of concerns about how that is defined, and about the concept of a founding principle more generally.

If we were to have a founding principle, it would be imperative that we grasp the full scope of services and activities to be undertaken by the qualifications body. That encompasses many services and responsibilities, which I do not believe have been captured in the text of the amendment. For example, the principle would not apply to the provision of services that are delivered outwith Scotland, or to the full range of qualifications and assessment services that qualifications Scotland will provide. However, I want to make it clear that I agree that it is important that qualifications Scotland prioritises services that are delivered in Scotland.

As drafted, amendment 2 is not clear on what is meant by the terms “support” or “provide for”. That could create a new role for qualifications Scotland that it is not designed to fulfil, such as the provision of pastoral or counselling services, which would not sit easily—nor should it—with the core functions of a national qualifications body.

As much as I agree with Mr. Greer’s focus on children, young people and adult learners, as well as on teachers and practitioners, his founding principle does not mention the many other important stakeholders that qualifications Scotland works with and supports, not least in higher education, business and industry, as well as other third-party stakeholders and public organisations.

I also have a more general concern, which is that the insertion of any kind of founding principle could lead to unintended consequences. It is never possible to know in advance how such a provision could be held to affect other provisions in the bill, which seem, on the face of it, to be absolute in their terms. I would not want to risk introducing such a lack of predictability or transparency.

For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 2. However, I note that Mr. Greer’s amendment 3, in group 7, proposes something slightly more straightforward around the body’s functions. While there would be areas to address in that respect, I hope that it might be possible for us to work with him to do something in that space, rather than his pressing amendment 2 to a vote today.

I am happy to do so.

There has been continuous engagement with the Information Commissioner’s Office in relation to data sharing across the board. The point that I was trying to make is that we have a local pilot happening in the north-east. On the chronology of what needs to happen next—this has been going on for some time now—the data-sharing arrangement is currently being finalised. The data sharing is due to take place in the spring, and the evaluation work is planned for later this year, at which point I would expect engagement to be undertaken with local partners and the Information Commissioner’s Office.

From that pilot we will learn how best to approach a national roll-out. Of course we will have to engage with the Information Commissioner’s Office on that, and on the learning from the pilot, but the pilot and the data-sharing arrangement have not yet been completed. The chronology of that is important in relation to the engagement with the Information Commissioner’s Office, the learning from the pilot and how we can upscale it and potentially roll it out at national level.

Indeed. No issues have thus far been raised with me or been presented to me by officials, but I would be more than happy to engage with the committee on that. As I understand it, there was no requirement to have that process completed by the laying of the SSI today, but there will be for it to come into force on 19 May.

I will sit very quietly and allow you to interrupt and interject consistently. It is not particularly pleasant, but I will allow you to continue, Mr Ross.

We will ask Social Security Scotland to provide a written update to the committee. We want more young people to have access to university and higher education, but we also want them to have access to free school meals, which is the purpose of the SSI that is before us today. We will take that point away and provide the committee with a further update on the points that Ms Duncan-Glancy has raised, which are very fair.

I engaged with the SFT on that.

I have set out the SSI; we are dancing on the head of a pin.