���˿���

I take the point that, as the cabinet secretary and Ross Greer have said, that function has already been created in the SQA, but that is after a significant amount of concern was expressed about the organisation, after various problems with exams—I will not rehearse them, but they started in 2020 and continued in relation to the history exams. Does the cabinet secretary accept that, rather than leaving whatever replaces the SQA to create a preferable structure in the midst of a crisis, it would be better to properly set up that new structure in legislation, so that we have the right kind of structure from the beginning?

I whole-heartedly agree with the member. In this circumstance, the interest is important and, where there is a conflict, it must be managed. The point that I made to the cabinet secretary earlier is that trade union representatives are well versed in understanding that, but the interest that they represent is crucial and should not be lost. That is why I have lodged the amendment in this group.

As we have discussed, a trade union seat on the board gives teachers and lecturers a formal route to shaping decisions and addressing concerns with the education system. It provides a pathway for them to share their professional expertise with those governing the country’s qualifications, demonstrates and strengthens democratic accountability and reflects Scotland’s commitment to public services, the workforce and fair work.

Amendment 217 stipulates that a representative of a trade union that represents staff of qualifications Scotland can be on the board. This is the amendment that we have previously discussed and on which we had interaction with regard to the ability of a board member who is a member of staff to manage that conflict. I have set out quite extensively why I think that the matter can be managed and why it should progress.

Amendment 218 stipulates that the board should include a representative with knowledge of or expertise in business, industry or skills development. I think that I am right in saying that the cabinet secretary said that she would be prepared to improve or change the amendment—the wording as it stands is excellent—to bring it to something that the Government could support. My interest in making sure that the qualifications system is fit for the future, including for business, industry and skills, is such that I feel strongly about having such a provision in the bill and I welcome the Government’s offer to work together to do so at stage 3.

Amendment 220 creates the option for the board to co-opt members for a period of four years, which is crucial, not only because of some of the circumstances that we have debated at length in the chamber and in committee, but because of the pace of change in education. I was lucky enough to be elected to the Parliament and to serve on the committee a few years ago, and the landscape has changed even since then. For example, the role played by artificial intelligence in schools and examinations—and, indeed, across society—has changed, so the ability to co-opt members will be really important. It is not an unusual ability for a board to have, and I am pleased that the Government is supportive of amendment 220. That is important.

I would have intervened when the Government was discussing amendment 53, but I was trying to keep up with the other numbers and the support or otherwise that the Government was indicating. I lodged a late manuscript amendment to amendment 53; I did so yesterday, which I admit was quite late in the day, but it was the first working day after I had met the cabinet secretary last Thursday to discuss in detail the Government amendments. That is why the manuscript amendment was late, and I do understand why the convener thought it not appropriate to select it.

Nevertheless, I believe that such an amendment could strengthen the Government’s amendment. As opposed to consulting when qualifications Scotland sees fit, my amendment would have said that it should just consult. It is important that the qualifications body consults, and I ask the Government to reflect on that at this point and to consider whether we could work together to strengthen the amendment at stage 3.

That covers all my amendments in the group.

With respect to the cabinet secretary’s comments about the scoping, I would have hoped that the Government would have done some of that work ahead of introducing the bill. Given the clarity with which experts in the profession and others have spoken, it is a bit late in the day to say to a member of the committee that scoping will take too long and delay the bill when the cabinet secretary’s amendment would delay any action on that by two years. I am afraid that I do not accept that point.

On the point about getting the scoping right, the cabinet secretary will have noted that subsection 5 of the proposed new section in amendment 291, on Education Scotland, provides regulation-making powers for the ministers to provide further details, to give the Government and the committee the opportunity to scrutinise the detail of the establishment of the accreditation function and delivery and to address the concerns that the cabinet secretary has raised. Contrary to the Government’s amendment 73, which says that it will review the operation of the accreditation provisions over a two-year period—I take the cabinet secretary’s point that it could look to bring that review forward a bit, but I still think that it is a bit of a delaying tactic, if I am honest. My amendment would get things moving quickly and give the Government the scope to take the extra time that it appears to need to look at the scoping that it probably should have done before it introduced the bill in the first place.

On the point about the definition, I think that, if the substantive amendment was accepted, we could add a definition at stage 3. It does not have to be a case of either/or. However, can the cabinet secretary give me a bit more detail on her point about the specific wording and her concern that it would not do what I am trying to do? Can she say more about what would be needed at stage 3 so that I can understand what she is, I think, offering to undertake?

I am sorry. If there were a mechanism for that, I would enjoy the back-and-forth.

I worry about this. I understand the point that has been made about Ross Greer’s position. However, I have to say to my colleague Willie Rennie that I am still a bit disappointed that we are in the position that we are in, which is that there are options for change on the table just now that, if Ross Greer and others were really minded to do so, they could support. I am a team player, I understand what Willie Rennie and Ross Greer are proposing and I accept that there needs to be discussion. However, I put on the record that I am disappointed that it appears that we cannot have that discussion now and that, in choosing not to agree to the amendments, members have actively decided not to make the decision for change. I am disappointed about that, and I would like to hear Willie Rennie’s response to that.

I would hope that the Government would be able to work with us to look at such aspects of implementation. However, I am not prepared to accept that any delay here is the committee’s or Opposition members’ burden to bear. It is the Government’s burden, because the bill has been introduced according to the Government’s timetable. It has been delayed in the past, it has taken far too long to get here, and the fact that it needs more than 300 amendments is unfortunate. Had the bill been stronger, and had it built on the recommendations and suggestions in the expert reports, we would not be in this position and the Government, with its resource, capacity and great expertise, would have been able to answer all of these questions before we got to this stage.

My amendment 295 would place the accreditation function with curriculum Scotland because that agency would, I think, be able to drive forward the changes that we need in the curriculum.

Curriculum Scotland would contain many of the functions of Education Scotland, along with the improvement function that Ken Muir spoke about and the SQA’s accreditation and regulation directorate. That would bring coherence to the education landscape as opposed to cluttering it, and there would be scope to move current functions and the resources that are associated with them. I take the member’s points about cost.

Does the cabinet secretary recognise that trade unions already have representatives on boards, such as is being proposed here, and that they are well versed in managing those kinds of conflicts of interest and could be a beneficial addition because they work in the organisation, they have direct experience of what it is like to work in that organisation and they represent the trade union? Does the cabinet secretary not recognise that those members are well placed to manage such a conflict of interest but also to bring that richness of information about what it is like to work there?

The member makes a strong case, but can I clarify whether he intends to support our amendments on the representation of trade unions on the board?

As we have discussed this morning and during the committee’s consultation on the bill, it is recognised that our qualifications system must reflect the diversity among all of Scotland’s learners, including in relation to those who sit at the table. Amendment 225 would address how qualifications Scotland would listen to, learn from and work with people who will be most affected by its decisions.

We can probably all agree that people who are affected by such decisions have not always been listened to optimally and that we need to address that, so amendments in that regard will be incredibly important. Strong governance comes not from the boardroom alone but from inclusive structures that bring in the lived experience of learners, educators, parents and communities. That is why the committees and their structures that are set out in the bill are crucial and why it is important that we discuss who will be on those committees and how they will operate.

The amendments reflect a shared understanding that participation should be built into the fabric of the new agency—not just as a principle but as a practice—and that the diversity of everybody in the system should be reflected. If we are serious about equity and fairness in education, the way in which the new qualifications body will make decisions must be inclusive, transparent and collaborative. That principle is at the heart of the group of amendments that we are discussing. The amendments differ in their specific proposals, but I think that they are all united in a common goal, which is to strengthen the legitimacy and responsiveness of qualifications Scotland by embedding representation, accountability and consultation in its structures.

Amendment 225, in my name, would ensure that, when appointing members to its committees, qualifications Scotland “must have regard” to representing the interests of those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, those from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds and those who are care experienced. The amendment speaks to some of the serious concerns about Scotland’s education system in recent years. It will ensure that the learners who most need the qualifications system to work for them and be responsive to their needs and those who are usually underrepresented—not just in relation to qualifications but in staff bodies like qualifications Scotland—are carefully considered when members are being appointed to committees.

Amendment 225 presents an opportunity for that expertise to be right at the centre of committees, and it speaks to the principle that there should be nothing about us without us when it comes to care-experienced people, people with protected characteristics and people with socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds—I have mentioned it previously, but there is probably merit in mentioning again that the group of people who have experienced socioeconomic disadvantage is feeling particularly let down, given what happened in 2020. That should be the case for all public bodies that we set up, and amendment 225 is an attempt to make sure that qualifications Scotland serves all Scotland’s learners.

Amendment 227 would require the learner interest committee to include a representative of the parents of children and young people who were undertaking a relevant qualifications Scotland qualifications. That would mean that qualifications Scotland would benefit from the expertise of parents, who, if I am honest, felt a bit out of the loop with the bill. The amendment would give them the opportunity to have their rightful seat at the table to shape and improve the work of qualifications Scotland.

I understand what my colleague Ross Greer is seeking to achieve with amendments 50 and 120. In some ways, they are a bit circular in relation to consultation, given all the different groups and committees that are listed. I know that he is trying to make sure that everything is collaborative, but I wonder whether the amendments might have overstretched. On amendment 120, students who take advanced highers or do apprenticeships should be engaged and represented on the committee, but I am not sure that the wording of the amendment would allow for that. I suspect that that is not deliberate.

Amendment 228 would require qualifications Scotland’s teacher and practitioner interest committee to include a number of representatives to ensure that the views of trade unions and key education stakeholders were heard on it, including

“one or more persons who are representatives of an education trade union operating in Scotland ... one or more persons with knowledge in the areas which are the subject of Qualifications Scotland qualifications ... one or more persons with knowledge of business and industry”

and

“a representative of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland”.

I will take a moment to talk about that. Given the relationships between local authorities, the Government, schools and the education structures, it is really important that we make sure that there is that representation. The same goes for Colleges Scotland, the SFC, Skills Development Scotland and Universities Scotland, which all have an interest here. I appreciate that I have listed a lot of people, but a lot of people have a stake and an interest in the matter. All the organisations that are mentioned in amendment 228 have a stake in our education system succeeding, being on the front foot, being fleet of foot and being world leading again, so I encourage members to support my amendments in the group.

I move amendment 225.