Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have already mentioned my concerns in relation to creating new SPCB-appointed bodies. However, I want to back up the point that the convener has made that this is not just about higher history and how, in response to the 2013 petition, the petitioner was told, “Don’t worry—the culture’s changing.”

Shortly after I was first elected to the Parliament in 2016, there was a massive problem with the national 5 computing science paper. It was a very familiar experience—one that had happened before and has happened a number of times since—in which the SQA repeatedly refused to engage in good faith with those who were raising concerns, right up until we were past the point at which the issue had been raised in the Parliament. The SQA had sent out the then Deputy First Minister to insist that nothing was wrong. In the end, the SQA had to acknowledge, as quietly as possible, that the paper was seriously flawed and it had to significantly lower the grade boundaries.

The reason why that process was lacking and why I ended up having to raise the issue in the Parliament was that swathes of computing teachers across the country who were trying to raise concerns about the paper with the SQA had those concerns summarily dismissed. There is a place missing in the structure of Scotland’s qualification system where the professionals involved, learners and anyone else can go to raise complaints and legitimate concerns. The issue is that the body that is responsible for the system has, by default, dismissed those concerns and has often engaged in quite aggressive and defensive public relations exercises instead of engaging in good faith.

I want to back up the convener’s point. Higher history is an acute example that we have all been aware of recently, but there is a pattern of this happening over a long period, and it often goes back to that missing piece of the structure. There has been nowhere for people to go other than to those who are marking their own homework.

On that point about capacity, what consideration has the convener given to the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s recent report on SPCB-appointed bodies? Bluntly, the conclusion that we came to is that, whether it is a matter of capacity or other structural changes that need to be made, as it stands, the Parliament is not effectively scrutinising and holding to account the existing group of SPCB-appointed bodies. That is why the finance committee recently put a motion to the Parliament, which was agreed to, that no more SPCB-appointed bodies should be created until we have taken stock of the whole landscape and what needs to change in it.

On amendment 354 in particular, although this applies to all the amendments in the group, I am interested in Pam Duncan-Glancy’s response to the position, which has been put by John Mason and that I mentioned last week, that what we are talking about is ultimately not the responsibility of a public body. The SCQF Partnership is a charity, and that fact is at the core of a lot of the difficulties with the amendments in the group. It is a charity that tomorrow could cease to exist or could take a completely different form or make completely different decisions about its role in the system. Its functions and the restrictions on those functions and so on are not currently legislated for.

We need a wider discussion about the role of the SCQF Partnership in the system. We all agree that it has been fantastically successful, but now its form and status as a charity are causing significant issues. I do not think that we can legislate for those elements when they are ultimately based on the operations of a charity that is not accountable to us through legislation.

I thank the cabinet secretary for her response. I like the implication in it that I am being too moderate in my proposal, and that the cabinet secretary actually wants to go much further. [Laughter.]

I absolutely agree with her more radical approach that the advice received, and the response to it, should be published on a more regular basis throughout the year rather than just in the annual reports. On that basis, I am happy not to press amendment 36 and, when it comes to it, not to move amendment 37.

Amendment 36, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 283 and 284 not moved.

Amendment 285 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].

I am sure that this is the group that we have all been waiting for—I can feel an outbreak of consensus coming.

Believe it or not, the presumption behind my amendment is not that I am trying to declare a republic one public body at a time. My views on the monarchy are well known, and I think that it is an antiquated concept to have inspectors and so on serving at the pleasure of His Majesty. However, that is not the motivation behind my amendment; it is about Government efficiency. I do not believe that orders in council and appointments via the head of state, whether that is the King or, if Britain ever becomes a republic, the president, are an efficient process, in particular in relation to a body such as the inspectorate.

On exactly that point, if the King were to refuse consent for the bill on that basis, I think that that would be a constitutional crisis, because we operate on the principle that our monarchy is politically independent. I do not agree that that is the reality, but that is the position that the Crown has set out: that it is independent on political matters. To veto a bill on that basis would, I think, be unprecedented and would cause a constitutional crisis. Much as that may be entertaining for some of my colleagues, I do not think that it is a likely outcome in this case.

I come to my very last point—as you will be glad to hear, convener. Members will note that I am talking about orders in council not being an effective process for appointments. The reason that I have not included all of that here is a simple practical one. Between us all, and those lodging amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill and other bills, we have put a heavy burden on Parliament’s legislation team in recent weeks. Therefore, I asked the team to draft a set of amendments that would test the issue in principle, and if the committee were minded to agree to those, I would lodge subsequent amendments at stage 3 to lay out the alternative process to orders in council. That would be the regular appointment process that is used by all other public bodies that are not Crown appointments. At that point, I will conclude.

I move amendment 74.

As I said, I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for the offer to work with me on my amendments. On that basis, I am happy not to proceed with amendments 77, 78 and 91 at this stage.

If Pam Duncan-Glancy were to press amendment 326, which relates to having a majority of teachers or lecturers on the advisory council, I would support it. However, I suggest that, much like our experience in relation to the discussion on the qualifications Scotland board, that amendment will not be agreed to. Perhaps, as an alternative, if Ms Duncan-Glancy wished to work with me and the cabinet secretary on finding an acceptable alternative to what I have proposed in amendment 78, we might be able to get closer towards the position that she and I share on the involvement of teachers and lecturers.

Amendment 77 withdrawn.

Amendment 78 not moved.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

I strongly agree with the principle of amendment 237 and with exactly the point that Pam Duncan-Glancy just made. Does she agree that there would need to be an equal and opposite duty, which could perhaps be included in the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill, to ensure that those bodies also give due regard to any recommendations from qualifications Scotland, so that there is equality in both directions?

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her indications of support. Clearly, the drafting issue with amendment 280 will need to be addressed; the intention is for it to apply not simply to the first corporate plan, but to all corporate plans in perpetuity. Given that, and the cabinet secretary’s indication of her support for the principle, I am happy not to press amendment 280, but I will move amendments 35 and 71 once we come to consider those.

Amendment 280, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 281 not moved.

Good evening, everyone.

My first amendment in this group seeks to address what I see as one of the issues that have led us to the present point as regards the relative passivity of the SQA board. Recently, there have been significant improvements—the board culture has improved, and the new chair has had a transformative effect—but many of the issues that have led us to this point could and should have been effectively scrutinised and, in some cases, prevented by the board of the existing authority. That did not happen. At points in recent years, the board has not played a particularly active role, certainly in relation to decisions about the delivery of qualifications and matters of education policy. I think that the board has been mostly adequate in relation to corporate governance.

In amendment 280, I propose that the board would have to actively approve the corporate plan—it would force the board to hold a vote on the plan. The intention is to give the board a firm nudge and to ensure that, ultimately, it actively agrees to the plan, rather than passively nodding it through.