���˿���

In what way does the member think that parents should be engaged?

If the issue is just about the definition, could the amendment be supported at stage 2 and the definition be added at stage 3?

I thank the cabinet secretary for her engagement with the amendments in this group, and in particular for the offer to work on some of them at stage 3. I will come to that as I go through my amendments.

The amendments in this section are very important. Suffice it to say that all the amendments to the bill are important, but these are about giving a voice on the board of an organisation not just so that we can guarantee that it has expertise on it, but so that we can get trust back into the centre of our qualifications structure.

Important decisions about the membership of qualifications Scotland need to be taken, with a variety of different interests at heart, and the amendments in my name in this group try to make sure that that happens. We have seen what happens when we do not have that; we can have a disconnected education and skills system if we do not have representatives who recognise what is needed for future skills as well as what is needed for school qualifications.

It is important that we have trade union representation—I intervened on the cabinet secretary earlier in that respect. It is crucial that we recognise the role of trade unions. This committee has spent a considerable time arguing for the trade unions of colleges to be represented on boards, and that has to extend to qualifications Scotland, too. I do not think that some of the amendments that the cabinet secretary has lodged do quite what I am trying to do, which is to give a direct voice to staff on boards. If qualifications are to be really meaningful, we have to ensure that they are relevant to the real world, too, and I have also lodged some amendments in relation to that.

My amendments 211 and 212 increase the size of qualifications Scotland’s board to between 10 and 12 people, which is really important. The amendments are direct alternatives to the cabinet secretary’s amendments 41 and 42; the cabinet secretary is looking to increase the number on the board to between 7 and 11, but my amendment creates a board of between 10 and 12, which is necessary to accommodate the broader representation that I have suggested in my amendments 216 and 218. By increasing the size of the board, I am ensuring that staff, education unions and industry leaders can contribute to the governance of qualifications Scotland without sacrificing expertise or limiting the diversity of the boards. A board of that size will ensure that the qualifications Scotland governance model is participative and responsive, and I am pleased that the cabinet secretary is prepared to support the proposal.

I am not sure that amendment 27, in Ross Greer’s name, is strong enough to guarantee any trade union representation on the boards; it also appears to—unintentionally, I imagine—exclude representatives of teachers and college staff. I believe that the amendments in my name provide a more balanced offer and give voice to teachers and staff in schools and colleges. I would be willing to work with the cabinet secretary and Ross Greer at stage 3 to find alternatives, if both were prepared to do so. I have been trying to keep on top of the numbers of the amendments that the cabinet secretary spoke to—I think that I heard her say that she would be prepared to consider the matter at stage 3, and I am hoping that Ross Greer might, too.

Amendment 213 requires Scottish ministers to consult the whole board of qualifications Scotland when making regulations. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary supports that, because it is really important. I take the cabinet secretary’s point that a chair would consult their board in ordinary circumstances—indeed, I am quite sure that they would—but we have seen some less than acceptable circumstances in the sphere that we are discussing, and anything that we can do to protect against such circumstances will be important. That is why amendment 213, in my name, has been lodged.

Amendment 214 requires one member of qualifications Scotland to undertake a qualifications Scotland qualification, replacing the requirement for a member to

“appear to have knowledge of the interests of persons undertaking a relevant qualification.”

I understand the point that the cabinet secretary has made and the amendment that Ross Greer has lodged on the matter. I think that this is really important, because people who are undertaking qualifications in real time can tell us exactly the sort of experience that they had during the history of qualification and exactly what is happening in schools and what support they are getting. They can also give us incredible insight into the ways in which assessment interacts with curriculum, which we know has been a concern in the past. That is why I feel quite strongly about that particular amendment.

Amendment 215 ensures that schoolteachers are represented on the qualifications Scotland board. I take the point about other teachers, such as college teachers, and the fact that, given the pre-emption in relation to her amendment 43, the cabinet secretary said that she would be prepared to bring the matter back at stage 3, supporting this amendment, which her own amendment pre-empts—I think that I have those numbers right. On that basis, providing that schoolteachers are represented on the board in a stage 3 amendment that we can agree on, I would be prepared to hold amendment 215 until stage 3.

Amendment 216 requires the board to contain a representative of a

“trade union operating in Scotland.”

I think that that ensures that the new board is informed by the voices of those with a stake in the delivery of the new qualifications in schools, colleges and other training facilities, not only by the voices of those who manage them. We need that, because previous reforms have not engaged appropriately with front-line educators. I spoke earlier about the distance between the front-line decisions and decision making and the clutter in the middle—indeed, I think that my colleague wants to comment on that.

Given the difference, I do not think that it would be beyond the will or wit of Government to move staff with the necessary capabilities.

Moreover, surely it is sensible to put accreditation in the office of the chief inspector rather than leave it in the qualifications body, where there would be zero difference and which is far more about marking its own homework. The cabinet secretary appears to be suggesting that there is a difference, so that could be a useful separation.

I am sure that I will have an opportunity to explain a wee bit more shortly, but does the cabinet secretary accept that the Government’s chosen expert—Professor Ken Muir, who published a report on the matter—does not share the concerns about those two functions being in the same body? Why does the Government not agree with the expert?

I have to say that I share the member’s concerns about the willingness to do anything different at stage 3. I do not think that the cabinet secretary has indicated at all that any of the other options for change will be considered—[Interruption.]

It is clear that action needs to be taken. I would like to think that, were the whole Parliament to look at all the amendments, it would consider the Government’s amendment to be the least satisfactory of all the options. Given the Government’s concerns about the scope of the other options, I think that there is enough in the drafting.

I should have said this earlier—forgive me, convener, for not doing so—but I thank the clerks and the legislation team for all the work that they have put in. A lot of work has gone into producing the amendments, and I thank them for that.

I hope that, if there is an opportunity at stage 3, the Parliament can come to a view on what it would prefer.

Amendment 295 would place the accreditation function into a new body, curriculum Scotland, which would be set up by amendment 293, which is in a later grouping. The cabinet secretary alluded to that. The creation of curriculum Scotland as a stand-alone body is probably my preferred option, because Ken Muir said in his report that we should set up an agency to comprise the current support and improvement functions of Education Scotland and the SQA’s accreditation regulation directorate. My amendments would do that.

The amendments in the later groups explain what I think the functions of that organisation could be, and I will save that discussion for later. However, there is scope for some regulation-making powers—I take the points that the cabinet secretary makes about potential consultation and scope.

Far from duplicating any processes, it would bring to the system the coherence that all the experts talked about in their evidence to this committee and that Ken Muir mentioned in his report. I keep referring to that report, but I think that most people around the table will accept that it has been pivotal to this discussion.

I think that this move would allow us to do what we really need to do: reform the functions, ensure that the accreditation function is separated from the SQA—or qualifications Scotland, which the bill would set up—and bring the curriculum to the forefront of things. We know the situation with assessment just now. Indeed, one of the reasons for Professor Hayward’s review is the fact that a lot of the teaching that goes on in schools is driven by exams. The member has heard evidence to that effect.

The curriculum has to be driven by what young people in Scotland will need in the future to contribute to society in whatever way they wish as adults. That will require the curriculum not to be driven by exams; in fact, exams will have to work very differently to how they work just now. I think that my suite of amendments would ensure that.

I realise that I am straying into arguments that I will be making in respect of the later groupings on curriculum Scotland, but we have to accept that, as countless reports have said, the structures are not right. We know that the distance between front-line professionals and Government decision making is quite big, and the ground between is cluttered. My amendments try to give the Government a suite of options to bring more coherence to the system, and I would like to think that we could find some support for them at this stage.

I will conclude—you will be pleased to hear, convener—by saying that amendments 115, 116, 118, 122 to 124, 126, 127, 132 to 134, 137, 139 and 206, all of which have been lodged and spoken to by Willie Rennie and all of which I support, are consequential to the options presented in amendments 291, 295 and the other amendments in the group. I encourage members across the committee to accept that there are several options in front of us for doing what we know pupils, staff, trade unions and experts want us to do—to separate the accreditation function from the SQA and qualifications Scotland in order to restore trust in the system.

First, I apologise to my colleague Martin Whitfield, whose amendment 226 I overlooked in my opening remarks. I think that it is safe to say that it is a good amendment, for all the reasons that he set out, and I would support it.

I have listened carefully to what members have suggested. I will, therefore, seek to withdraw amendment 225, on the basis of what I think is an offer to work at stage 3 to address the issues that I highlighted with regard to ensuring that people with protected characteristics, people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and care-experienced people have been taken into account, and that due regard is paid to those groups.

I think that that speaks to the discussion between Willie Rennie and Martin Whitfield just now about the young person at the back of the room who has not necessarily been heard; my intention, through amendment 225, was to try to ensure that they are considered in that respect. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw amendment 225 at this point and bring it back with—I hope—the Government’s support.

Is it okay to do all the amendments now, convener?

I will not seek to move amendment 227 at this stage, not necessarily for the reasons that the Government and Ross Greer have set out in relation to the involvement of parents on the committee, but because of the point about broadening the definition and being more inclusive to include carers, as well as, presumably, parents and guardians of carers.

However, it is important that parents are represented, and by bringing the amendment back at stage 3 we could perhaps address the issue that Ross Greer highlighted. By that point, we will know what the situation is with the strategic advisory council, and the amendment would, at that stage, at least give us some provision—I do not want to say that it would be a fall-back, because I think that it is a really good amendment, and parents should be on the committee. Nevertheless, bringing back the amendment at stage 3 will allow for two things: it will enable me to tidy it up and include language around carers to be inclusive in that respect, and we will also, at that point, have a clearer picture of what is happening with the strategic advisory council.

I will, therefore, not seek to move amendment 227. The discussion between Willie Rennie and Martin Whitfield has been helpful and important, and there was a lot in that conversation to instruct how we do business in this Parliament.

I also support amendment 32. I would be keen to progress amendment 228, in my name, at this stage, so I will move it when we come to that point.

Amendment 225, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 49 moved—[Jenny Gilruth].