Scottish Qualifications Authority Bill: Stage 2
The second item is consideration of the Scottish Qualifications Authority Bill at stage 2. Committee members should have with them a marshalled list of amendments and the grouping of those amendments. They should also have a letter from the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People with initial drafts of regulations to be made under the bill and draft guidance for information.
I have been asked to go through the stage 2 procedure. That procedure is detailed, but it is important to outline it. The amendments are grouped to facilitate debate. The marshalled list dictates the order in which the amendments are called and moved. All amendments will be called in turn from the marshalled list and will be taken in order. We cannot move backwards through the marshalled list.
I will call the proposer of the lead amendment in each group, who should speak to and move that amendment. The member may speak to the other amendments in the same group. I will then call other members, including the proposers of all the amendments in the group. I will call members to move their amendments at the appropriate time and will clarify whether the member who moved the amendment wishes to press it to a decision. If not, they may seek the committee's agreement to withdraw the amendment. If it is not withdrawn, I will put a question on it. If any member disagrees, we will proceed to a division by a show of hands. If a member does not want to move their amendment, they should say "Not moved" when their amendment is called.
As I said, members have copies of the marshalled list of amendments. Jackie Baillie has now arrived at the meeting.
Section 1—Scottish Qualifications Authority: members
Amendment 9 is in a group on its own.
Timing is everything. I am grateful to the convener for being more garrulous than usual. That gave me time to get here.
I hope that amendment 9 is not a surprise to the committee or the Executive. Members consistently raised the matter in committee and in the parliamentary debate at stage 1. We felt that communication—or lack of communication—in the SQA has been an issue. Having an employee representative on the SQA board would help matters and would be recognised as good practice—I believe that something similar was done in respect of the new water board. Therefore, I do not see a fundamental problem with the amendment and hope that the Executive will support it.
I move amendment 9.
I warmly support amendment 9. With the exception of one member, the committee supported the proposal when it was previously discussed. I note Nicol Stephen's letter on the matter, which is dated 28 March, but I am disappointed by it. It seems that every time we get to this point, especially in respect of education and culture, the Executive backs off from its previous warm words and says that proposals are not appropriate at this time or in some way.
We must progress and ensure that there is proper structural involvement of staff. That is particularly so in respect of the SQA, which the staff delivered out of a difficult situation. I support the amendment and hope that Jackie Baillie will press it to a vote.
I have expressed my view a number of times in the committee and in the stage 1 debate in the chamber. The staff are catered for. The importance of the bill lies in having a tight working board. That does not require a member of staff to be on the board to represent staff. If we go down that road, we should go down it completely and have representatives from other groups and organisations. That was what happened previously and it failed. Staff can be represented on the council. Other organisations have staff representatives on their boards—that does mean that that is right or wrong. Each organisation must be judged individually on how it is set up, managed and represented. The bill's proposals are an improvement on previous arrangements. I look forward to what the minister has to say.
I was not involved in the stage 1 deliberations, but I was involved as a committee member in the SQA inquiry. It was clear that there was a real communication problem in that organisation, which might have been alleviated had there been better staff representation.
I am at a loss to know why the minister is not happy with amendment 9. The staff need to be involved and we want the organisation to be accountable and open. Therefore, I believe that staff involvement is vital.
I broadly agree with the idea of staff representation, although there are perhaps problems with how the choice of representatives is determined. The proposal is not about someone coming on to the board to represent the staff view in the old way; it is about a mark of contact, so that things are not done behind the staff's backs and so that there is a statutory channel of communication. I am happy to support Jackie Baillie's amendment in theory, but I am interested to hear what the minister says.
I start by passing on congratulations and good wishes to the convener of the committee. The news of the birth of her new baby is excellent. Having a six-month-old child, I know that the next few weeks will not always be easy for her, but they will be rewarding. I am ready to give advice, as indeed is another member of my team, Andy Beattie, who has a four-week-old child.
That has started the afternoon on a positive note, but, sadly for me, amendment 9 may quickly change all that. I understand and fully sympathise with the general intent behind the amendment to facilitate good communications and good partnership working at all levels in the SQA. The Executive supports the proper involvement of staff at all levels in the organisation and will continue to emphasise the importance of that in all its discussions with the SQA.
I welcome the initiatives that David Fraser is taking to ensure that good communication, discussion and involvement with staff take place at all levels. The Executive believes that the proper involvement of staff is right and should be achieved through a range of consultative mechanisms, good management and good communication.
There is a range of examples of good practice by which such consultation can be achieved. David Fraser is keen to introduce consultative mechanisms similar to those that are familiar to him through his experience in the national health service in Scotland. I want him to continue to take such initiatives and to recognise the fact that they will develop and mature alongside the SQA's capacity and ability to grow and improve as an organisation. In the Scottish Executive's view, that is best achieved on an administrative basis, which will allow a wide range of initiatives to be implemented and developed to suit the changing needs of the organisation.
We are concerned that amendment 9 would not provide for the involvement of all staff on relevant issues and would not provide the necessary scope for developing arrangements as the SQA moves forward. It is hard to envisage how one member of staff will be able to represent the views and interests of the full range of staff who work at the SQA. In my view, that problem underscores the need for the sort of arrangements about which I have spoken.
Members will be familiar with the Scottish Executive's policy on public appointments, which offers wide opportunities for members of the community to play a role on the boards of public bodies and which ensures that the best people for those roles are appointed on the basis of merit alone. The amendment would run contrary to that policy, which has developed over the years through rigorous examination and consideration. In recent times, the Nolan procedures have significantly strengthened the approach that ministers take to those appointments. I urge the committee to think carefully about that matter in considering the amendment.
The Executive supports the principle that the SQA staff, at all levels, should participate and make a positive contribution. We welcome the changes that John Ward and David Fraser are making to achieve that objective and look forward to further developments.
The amendment would not provide participation by the full range of staff and it is not in line with the Executive's current policy on open appointments based on merit. However, if members support the amendment, the Executive would like to discuss with the committee and with Jackie Baillie the most appropriate way of implementing it in terms of its wording and any supporting regulations.
I listened carefully to what the minister said. I have to express some disappointment. As he will recognise, amendment 9 is not designed to replace the welcome partnership approach that David Fraser and John Ward are adopting. The issues are not mutually exclusive. It is critical that there is staff representation at the level of the SQA board, given the communication failures of the past. Our desire to ensure that those failures are not repeated prompts the amendment.
The amendment is not about taking a stakeholder approach, which was the previous approach. It is not about creating institutional clutter. It is about addressing the problems that occurred in the previous diets, which led to the need to reform the SQA to make it more robust.
I have always believed in consistency in the Executive. The Executive's approach to Scottish Water, whereby there is an employee representative on the board, is welcome. In that case, the problems that Nicol Stephen highlighted in relation to appointments being based on merit and meeting the requirements of Nolan and of the Executive's policy on public appointments seem to have been overcome. I refer the minister to his colleague who dealt with the Water Industry (Scotland) Bill, which created Scottish Water—he will find that employee representation on the board was possible in that case. I beg to differ with him that such a provision is not possible in relation to the SQA. I will press the amendment.
The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
Amendment 1 is grouped with amendments 2 and 3.
Amendment 1 makes a small technical change to ensure that ministers have the option of paying members of the SQA board allowances and other expenses incurred in connection with their duties. The original wording in the bill, which specified only the payment of allowances, allowed for some ambiguity over whether expenses payments were also permissible. That is being tidied up.
Amendment 2 is a consequential amendment arising from amendment 1. It amends paragraph 11(4) of schedule 1 to the Education (Scotland) Act 1996 and reflects the introduction of remuneration for board members. To maintain consistency with other provisions, it introduces a reference to expenses. That would make the two subparagraphs that list the restrictions on the chair and members identical. Those two subparagraphs are therefore merged into one.
Amendment 3 ensures that ministers can pay advisory council members travelling and other expenses incurred in connection with their duties. That will ensure consistency with the provision for payment of expenses to SQA board members as introduced by amendment 1.
I move amendment 1.
There is agreement in the committee on the amendments. I presume that you have made your submission and that there is no need for you to conclude.
I waive my right to sum up.
That is very generous of you.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment 2 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 2—Power to regulate SQA procedures
Amendment 4, in the name of Mike Russell, is grouped with amendment 6.
Amendment 4 builds on the debate that we had about amendment 9 and is not dissimilar in its intent. Amendments 4 and 6 seek to strengthen the role of the Scottish Executive within the reconstituted SQA.
When the director of education in North Lanarkshire gave evidence to the committee, he said—even when pressed—that the SQA is not a normal non-departmental public body. Its structure is not that of a normal body. Why is it not a normal body? Because it has gone through a difficult period. The SQA's work was saved from total meltdown only by direct intervention from the Scottish Executive in a way that is not normal when operating a non-departmental public body.
The minister knows that I was initially concerned that the Executive was not following the route of making the SQA an agency. However, I accept the argument from the SQA board and chair, and from some others, that to do that would be too much of a disruption, so I am happy to back the proposals.
However, we also need some sort of safeguard. It is possible for the minister to have an observer at the SQA board and I presume that, under the regulations, there could be an observer at the advisory council. Amendments 4 and 6 make it a right and a duty that the minister will be represented at the board and advisory council by somebody who can see what is taking place.
It might be said that we should just re-establish the SQA and let it go, but that would be irresponsible at this time. There is still public concern and amendments 4 and 6 add to the belt-and-braces approach that would reassure many parents and children in Scotland who are worried about the performance of the examinations systems. These small amendments would allow the Scottish Executive to continue to know at first hand what is happening within the SQA.
That will lead to better governance and communication. The amendments do not give the minister or the Executive rights of veto or interference. They provide a better means of communication similar to that which was so helpful to the SQA during its recovery. The amendments are positive; they move the bill a small stage forward and would make for a better SQA.
I move amendment 4 and formally move amendment 6.
Are there any observations by other members?
Amendment 6 cannot be moved yet.
It was just keenness.
I was keen to move amendment 6 but the clerk tells me I cannot. I will just move amendment 4 and have done.
I would hate to think you had made a mistake, Mike.
So would I.
The matters of principle raised by amendments 4 and 6 are absolutely right and, throughout consideration of all the amendments, the committee will adopt a belt-and-braces approach to ensure that there is no chance of a repetition of what has happened. I confess to not understanding legal jargon so I would welcome some clarification from Mike Russell. I am minded to support amendment 6—which he has not yet formally moved.
I was not allowed to.
Well, let us not go there just now.
Amendment 6 is very helpful, but if we have amendment 6 I am not sure that we need amendment 4. I would therefore welcome a technical clarification on whether the amendments do separate things.
They do: amendment 4 refers to meetings of the SQA whereas amendment 6 refers to meetings of the advisory council. We are dealing with two separate bodies.
That is fine.
As no other members wish to speak, I invite the deputy minister to respond.
I will speak to amendment 6 first and then amendment 4. I intend to accept amendment 6. I will give the reasons behind that and, in so doing, explain why I am reluctant to accept amendment 4.
The Executive expects that officials from the education department will often attend advisory council meetings to give the Executive's perspective on all issues under discussion, to offer advice and to provide information as appropriate. However, it was never intended that the Executive would participate as a member of the council. The council has a responsibility to provide advice not only to the SQA but—if it feels it appropriate—to ministers. We want to ensure that the council operates independently in providing that advice.
We did not expect to put such an arrangement on a statutory basis. However, amendment 6 is fully in tune with our aims and objectives. The amendment avoids any requirement for a representative of ministers to attend meetings of the advisory council; it simply enables such a presence. It ensures that ministers will always have a right to representation at meetings if circumstances demand. We envisage such attendance being more or less routine, to provide support to the council. However, we think that it would be wrong to require such attendance in statute. We do not want to impose a presence at all times. Amendment 6 is helpful. It will allow the regulations that establish the advisory council to include provision for the presence of a representative of Scottish ministers to observe and participate in the advisory council meetings.
I sympathise with the intention behind amendment 4—to have a representative of Scottish ministers attending and participating in meetings of the SQA board. The important distinction between amendments 6 and 4 is that one refers to the advisory council and the other refers to the board. Senior officials of the education department now routinely attend SQA board meetings on behalf of ministers. Any official from the Executive—from the finance department, for example—may attend a board meeting by arrangement with John Ward and the board. The current view is that those arrangements are beneficial to everyone concerned—to the Executive, to the SQA and to all the stakeholders involved in ensuring the smooth running of the exam system. The provisions of the bill ensure that, should difficulties arise in future, ministers will be able to require the attendance of their representative if necessary. It is important to emphasise that that power exists. However, as I have made clear, the Executive does not believe that it is necessary to impose such representation always. Amendment 4 would require a representative of Scottish ministers to attend all meetings of the SQA board, but we prefer to leave the position as it is at present.
I would compare amendment 4 with amendment 6 by saying that amendment 4 requires an Executive representative to attend board meetings whereas amendment 6 enables such presence at advisory council meetings.
We are currently attending meetings of the SQA board and we envisage that that will continue. If it became a problem at any stage, there are powers through regulations to require such attendance. However, we do not propose to go further by putting a requirement in the bill. I hope that that gives a clear explanation of the Executive's position on the two amendments.
Nicol Stephen has given an explanation, although I am not sure whether it is entirely clear. Given that an Executive presence was very important in addressing past problems with the SQA, and that we anticipate that the best way to avoid such problems in the future is to ensure close communication and knowledge, many people would expect us to enshrine that presence in the bill. It should be clear that the Executive has a member on the board who is present at meetings, can see what happens and can communicate. I see no harm in that. It would be a useful step forward to include a provision for something that already happens—the purpose of legislation is to codify what already happens. It would not be disadvantageous to the SQA or the Executive, but would be advantageous to parents and pupils, who would gain extra reassurance. I would like to press the amendment.
The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 4 disagreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Section 3—Power to regulate SQA procedures
Amendment 5, in the name of Mike Russell is grouped with amendments 7, 8 and 10. I call Mike Russell to move amendment 5 and to speak to all amendments in the group.
Should I speak to all amendments? Amendment 10 is Jackie Baillie's amendment.
Jackie Baillie will speak to her amendment and any others, but you may speak to all amendments, too.
As I am supporting amendment 10, I would be delighted to speak to it. The purpose of all the amendments is broadly similar, yet they complement each other and are all necessary to make the advisory council work better. I welcome the draft regulations that have been circulated to the committee, which take us a step forward.
Amendments 5, 7, 8 and 10 strengthen the role of the advisory committee and ensure that, were there to be a difference of opinion between the advisory committee and the board, ministers would know about it and would be able to react to such serious circumstances. In order for that to work we require written responses from the SQA to the advisory council—that is the purpose of amendment 10. We also require that advice given by the advisory council to the SQA should be copied to Scottish ministers so that they are in the loop, given that one of the problems in the past was that ministers were out of the loop. Furthermore, we must be certain that if there is a conflict, and the SQA is not acting on advice from the advisory council, the Scottish ministers know the reasons why the SQA is not acting on that advice.
The four amendments represent yet another belt-and-braces approach and provide security in the structure. We all welcome and support the advisory council, but we must ensure that it has a mechanism to ensure that, should the situation become serious or difficult, its work can be drawn to the attention of ministers, and that there is a mechanism for the SQA to respond. We must be assured that there is formal communication between the bodies, of which there is a record and a trail that can be followed, should we need to do so. More important, the amendments are proactive: members of the advisory council and the board will recognise their respective responsibilities and respect the processes of the two bodies. The amendments represent important and helpful developments in the role of the advisory council. I commend them to the minister and the committee.
I move amendment 5.
I invite Jackie Baillie to speak to amendment 10. Continuing this generous reciprocity towards each other's amendments, she may also speak to the other amendments in the group, if she wishes.
Thank you very much. The fact that the four amendments are largely similar should not surprise the minister. The issues were flagged up at stage 1, both in committee and in the stage 1 debate.
As Mike Russell said, the purpose of amendment 10 is to address communication failures and to ensure that the stakeholders' advice is heeded and responded to. The advice need not always be followed. It is to be regretted that, in the past, instructions were issued from other quarters that were never implemented and that people did not take the advice that was given. It is perfectly legitimate for the SQA board to take the view that the advisory council is wrong on a particular occasion, but we need to ensure that we have a written record of that kind of debate or transaction—call it what you will.
I am equally attracted to Mike Russell's amendments as I am to amendment 10. We need a belt-and-braces approach. However, I feel that it is not essential that the advice be copied to ministers. If amendment 6 were accepted, ministers would be party to the advisory council, so I would assume that they would receive the advisory council's minutes as a matter of course. However, I will not split hairs with Mike Russell.
The minister might want to take away our suggestions to consider them further before returning at stage 3 with an amendment that best reflects what the committee is after and that also meets the technical requirements.
If no other members wish to contribute, I invite the minister to speak.
At the outset, let me say that I fully support the amendments' intention of ensuring that the advisory council conducts its affairs in an open and transparent way, especially in the provision of its advice to the SQA board. There should be good communications among the board, the advisory council, all the stakeholders involved in the exams process and the Scottish Executive.
I want to place on record my view of how the process should work, so that the process is clear. I also undertake to look further at the issue of whether the regulations should state how agreement should be reached between the SQA board and the advisory council. As Jackie Baillie suggested, I will undertake to look further at that, but I want to avoid making the process overly bureaucratic and formal. I am therefore likely to come back with proposals that fall short of an amendment that would place these suggestions on the face of the bill. I will try to explain the reasons for that as I progress with my remarks and comments.
The Executive wants the workings of the advisory council to be open. We anticipate that, in its role as a key voice of the SQA's wide range of stakeholders, the advisory council will carry out most of its work in the public domain. The advisory council will also have the power to provide its advice directly to ministers as well as to the SQA board. We anticipate that much of the council's advice would be published in order to demonstrate to stakeholders that their views are being transmitted accurately. The Executive's intention is that the advisory council should operate on a general presumption of openness, which will ensure that the flow of advice and decisions is transparent to all stakeholders involved.
I will now discuss each of the amendments in turn. Amendment 5 seeks to ensure that the advice that is given by the council to the SQA is available to ministers. However, the amendment goes beyond a general presumption of openness and gives Scottish ministers a statutory place in the flow of advice between the advisory council and the SQA board.
I envisage that, as Jackie Baillie suggested, the minutes and the advice will be available to Scottish ministers. I oppose amendment 5 because it raises issues about the role of ministers at one point in the process. As a non-departmental public body, the SQA can and should take its own decisions. That is the ability that we are trying to encourage. The SQA should make decisions about—and take action on—the responsibilities that fall within its locus. It is important that its decisions are based on evidence and good advice. The SQA must be encouraged to retain responsibility for appropriate decisions.
Amendment 5 rightly emphasises the importance of openness and transparency. It would ensure that ministers were kept informed of advice that the advisory council gives to the SQA. However, to some extent, the amendment risks undermining the independence of the SQA, by giving ministers a statutory involvement in the provision of that advice.
I realise that some of my points are at the margin—
They are over the margin.
It is important that we encourage the right spirit from the start. Much of what we intend to achieve will not be achieved by words on a sheet of paper, words to the committee, or words in the bill, but by the correct spirit among the advisory council, the SQA board, the stakeholders and ministers. Good communication is extremely important. There will be times when the advisory council will advise the SQA board on relatively minor issues and there will be times when there will be a lot of advice, perhaps in the form of a document. It would be wrong to involve the SQA board in having to formalise a response to all aspects of the advice. It would be wrong to make the process too bureaucratic. I will come to that issue when I speak to the other amendments in the group. Good communication will be achieved only if we set up the organisation in the correct way.
I put on the record that it is my intention that advice that is provided should be made known to ministers and to all relevant stakeholders. However, I distinguish that from the statutory involvement of ministers in the process, which comes back to my point about not having such a measure in the bill. I see no need for amendment 5 in achieving the objective of keeping ministers and others informed. I am concerned that giving ministers a statutory role in the flow of advice between the advisory council and the board might undermine the board's responsibility for taking its own decisions.
I have made it clear on previous occasions that the Executive intends that the advisory council's work should be managed by an agreed annual work plan. I anticipate that the advisory council, ministers and the SQA will agree a memorandum of understanding that will set out the way in which the three will interact, particularly the requirements for making public the council's advice.
I discussed that approach with John Ward at lunch time today—we had a meeting at 12 o'clock—and he agreed to it. We will consider whether the memorandum of understanding would be sufficient or whether there is a need for regulations. There are no such regulations in the group of draft regulations that have been circulated to the committee, so new regulations would be required. I would advise the committee about that before stage 3, if we agree to proceed on that basis.
Amendments 7, 8 and 10 would introduce a requirement on the SQA board to respond to the advisory council and to ministers when it received advice. Amendments 7 and 8 would require an explanation from the board only when it decided not to act on the council's advice, and amendment 10 would introduce a wider requirement for a response to all advice that was received.
I am sympathetic to the idea that the board should be proactive in responding to the council's advice, and particularly in explaining the reasons for its decisions. In previous statements, the Executive has made it clear that it intends the relationship between the board and the council to be constructive and involve the two bodies working closely together. That was the primary reason for our decision to appoint an existing board member to convene the council.
However, we have also made it clear that we are concerned that a statutory requirement would be an inappropriate way of achieving that aim. Although the general intention behind the amendments coincides with the Executive's policies, the imposition of a requirement for a formal response from the board to the council would seem bureaucratic in its day-to-day effect on the secretariat that would be responsible for the process.
For big issues, the management of a clear trail of advice, decision and explanation would be relatively straightforward. When the SQA has taken into account more general advice in reaching decisions on a range of smaller issues, such a formal process may act as a constraint on meaningful two-way communication.
The Executive has made it clear that it expects the board to keep the council properly informed of the reasons for its decisions, regardless of whether the council provided advice, and that the two bodies should be proactive in consulting each other on key issues. A statutory requirement for a chain of formal advice, decision and response would risk preventing the two bodies from engaging in a more constructive dialogue on the SQA's future, so I ask Mr Russell to withdraw amendment 5 and not to move amendments 7 and 8. I also ask Ms Baillie not to move amendment 10.
I repeat that I am committed to tackling the issue through regulations or by using the powers in relation to the advisory council and the SQA board that are available to ministers under the bill, and/or tackling the issue administratively, through a memorandum of understanding between the council and the board. Both actions may be required.
At the start of the minister's speech, I was on the point of agreeing with him, but by the time he reached the end, I was not so sure. I think that we share the same aim, but my concern is that I have not seen the regulations or the terms of the memorandum of understanding, which seems to have been put in place at the 11th hour in the 59th minute.
The memorandum is not in place.
I am being more generous to you than you deserve.
We started off with the SQA being required to have regard to some matters. We are keen to move to a duty to respond. Because of the communication failures, we cannot rely on what the minister said about a spirit of partnership between the organisations. It is incumbent on the legislature to ensure that we establish the organisations appropriately. The students who suffered in the 2000 exam diet would not appreciate the distinction between spirit and the word of law.
I strongly recommend that the minister reflect again before stage 3. I accept his notion of regulations and a memorandum of understanding, but I would still like him to go further. If the minister does not close down that possibility, I will be prepared not to move amendment 10. If the minister is saying that the possibility has been closed down, I will be inclined to move my amendment.
We are all agreed on the objectives. The question is how they are achieved. I am not closing down any option at this stage. However, I do not think that making four amendments to the bill is the best way of achieving those objectives.
I will consider all the options for amending the bill at stage 3 and for regulations and administrative measures that could achieve the intent behind amendments 5, 7, 8 and 10, on which I believe we are agreed. I will notify the committee as soon as possible not only about amendments but about the regulations that might be required and about the memorandum of understanding between the council and the SQA board. I am likely to be able to provide only a draft of that memorandum of understanding before stage 3.
I am tempted to start by saying that the best is the enemy of the good. When the committee considers legislation, quite often discussions such as this take place, a commitment is given to consider something and members of the committee withdraw amendments. However, thereafter, what we get is not what we expected.
For example, the Scottish Qualifications Authority Bill proposes advisory council regulations, but the draft regulations do not mention the key point—to which the minister referred twice—that the convener of the advisory council shall be a member of the SQA. For me, that is a crucial part of the regulations, but it is not included in the draft regulations.
The word "public" is mentioned only once in the draft regulations, but the minister used it about a dozen times. The commitment to public meetings in the draft regulations is not unequivocal. Regulation 9(4) states:
"The Council shall hold meetings which any member of the public may attend, at least once in every year."
There is a drafting problem, because regulation 9(4) implies that only one such meeting might be held. I am worried about that because openness and accountability in the operation of the advisory council and the SQA board are crucial.
Why should that be important? The committee learned much from its inquiry, including one vital point—the word "expect" is not enough. During the inquiry, we thought—we expected—that, within a non-departmental public body, there would be an audit trail of information that would tell us what had happened, but that audit trail did not exist. We expected that there would be openness and accountability in relation to how the body operated, but the information did not exist. We expected that a non-departmental public body would respond to information, advice and criticism from ministers, but that did not happen.
The members who sat around the table and took part in the inquiry—four of those members are still on the committee—know that some things never happened, despite the fact that we all agree with the minister that we would have liked them to happen. It is one of our jobs to ensure that the system cannot go wrong again. That is why it is crucial that we get the relationship between the advisory council and the SQA right. If the minister had come to the committee with a proposal that would meet that aim, of course amendments 5, 7 and 8 would have been withdrawn—I would have been delighted to withdraw them. However, he has not come with such a proposal. He has come with a set of draft regulations that have been issued to members and that do not address the matter, despite the fact that the document is headed "Advisory Council … Regulations".
Now we are talking about some kind of concordat or memorandum of understanding between the board and the advisory council, which we will have no opportunity to influence before stage 3—indeed, today is the first that we have heard of it. I would prefer us to agree to the amendments, as that would put an onus on the minister to come back with something better—if that is possible. Philosophically, I do not think that regulations or concordats are the right way forward. The relationship between the board and the advisory council is central to the Scottish Qualifications Authority Bill and will be crucial to the operation of the SQA.
If we place in the legislation requirements to give information to ministers, we will not bring ministers into the decision-making process—I regret the sophistry of some of the arguments. The amendments would enhance the flow of information. The blockages in the flow of information and the way in which the organisation operated up to 2000 created a crisis for Scotland's young people. We can do better than sophistry—we could include in the legislation requirements that would make a difference. I hope that the committee will agree to the amendments. I give the commitment that, if the minister comes forward with a better scheme—I am sure that, given all the resources of wisdom and intelligence that are available to him, he will be able to do so—I, for one, will be entirely happy for the amendments to be overcome at stage 3. However, he may be unable to come forward with a better scheme and, if so, the committee has an obligation to improve the bill on behalf of the young people of Scotland, so that the communications disaster that took place in 2000 cannot happen again.
Do you wish to press or to withdraw—
I think that I was indicating that I wish to press my amendments. I hope that Jackie Baillie will also press amendment 10, so that there is something in the bill for the minister to change.
The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 5 disagreed to.
Amendment 6 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.
Amendment 3 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
Section 5—Advice to SQA
Amendment 7 has already been debated with amendment 5.
Amendments 7 and 8 were consequential to amendment 5, which was disagreed to. I deeply regret the fact that there seems to be little point in moving the amendments.
Amendments 7 and 8 not moved.
Amendment 10 is in the name of Jackie Baillie.
I will not move amendment 10, on the basis of the minister's commitment that he will come back to the committee before stage 3 with something that reflects the robustness of the committee's view.
Amendment 10 not moved.
Section 5 agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
That concludes the committee's consideration of the Scottish Qualifications Authority Bill at stage 2.
We will have a two-minute comfort break.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—