Chamber and committees

I would like to see why on earth it would cost that amount of money to do something that is relatively simple, given the relative scale of the accreditation function in the SQA.

I will continue. I appreciate and am always open to interventions, but it is important that we get back to the central point that my amendment and the other amendments in the group are trying to address, which is how having the critical function of accreditation in the same organisation that is responsible for creating and delivering the qualifications creates a systemic risk of vulnerability that no amount of internal governance can correct.

I turn to the broader framework of the amendments in the group that I have put my name to in support—mainly the ones from Willie Rennie that give full effect to the reform. Amendments 115 and 116, in the name of Willie Rennie, begin the task of removing the accreditation committee from the internal machinery of qualifications Scotland. Amendment 116 in particular strikes key lines from schedule 1 that define the committee as subordinate to qualifications Scotland. That is the model which Professor Muir found deeply unsatisfactory. He said that the bill appears to allow the new body to have total control over when and if it needs to engage with wider users and who it engages with. That is a deeply troubling formulation.

As it stands, the legislation will enable the new agency to gatekeep engagement and control its own scrutiny mechanisms, which is precisely the culture of self-regulation that brought the SQA into disrepute. Amendments 115 and 116 begin the necessary process of dismantling that.

Amendments 117 and 219 are direct alternatives, with amendment 117, which I support, assigning the accreditation function to the chief inspector, and amendment 219 suggesting the SCQF Partnership as an alternative. Although the SCQF Partnership has strong expertise in qualification, comparability and recognition, it is not structured or equipped as a regulatory body. The SPICe analysis concludes that the SCQF would require significant expansion and restructuring to take on that function. Even then, concerns would remain about its legal authority and capacity to enforce accreditation standards. That is why I support the idea that the accreditation function should be housed with the chief inspector, which is an independent statutory office with scrutiny powers and, if later amendments are passed, it would be accountable to the Parliament. I believe that that is the natural home for the function and one that aligns with international examples.

In my discussions with other parliamentarians round this table, I have repeatedly made the point that one of the organisations in Scotland for which I have enormous respect is Audit Scotland. When Audit Scotland publishes its reports, every one of us—the Government and parliamentarians—sits up and takes notice, because of the esteem in which it is held and the respect and authority with which the Auditor General speaks. Adding to the responsibilities of the office of the chief inspector would add further authority, credibility, respect and esteem to the accreditation function.

Jackie Dunbar asked about other examples. In England, Ofqual was established, precisely to address the failings of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, under which award and regulation were combined. Qualifications Wales operates entirely separately from Government or delivery agencies. In Northern Ireland, the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment combines the two roles. Having listened to what school leaders and expert opinion reflect about Northern Ireland, I know that there is deep and widespread dissatisfaction with the way that things work there.

We should stick with the expert view. I do not think that there is any appetite for continuing or replicating the model in Northern Ireland and the one that we have here in Scotland when there is so much dissatisfaction with it. We should learn the lessons that are on offer to us and move on.

John Mason will know, including perhaps from our other conversations, that I believe that the critical issue in Scotland, as is the case elsewhere in the United Kingdom and globally, is that of leadership. Leadership is much more than what is conventionally thought of as leadership, and the character and quality of leadership is the defining issue. We see that in schools in particular. Where you have a tremendous school leader, you have a tremendous school, regardless of any other externalities. Frankly, we do not spend enough time in any of this Parliament’s committees, or in the chamber, debating and discussing the need to deepen the leadership skill base in our country across all sectors.

I do not disagree with what John Mason said, but I do not want to create structural issues that will lead to the continuation of some of the matters that are connected to the SQA and that have arisen in the past few years. Those are issues that led the Government to decide that it was going to abolish the SQA and replace it. I do not want us to simply change the name plate on the door or the building. It would be a failure of leadership on our part not to grasp the issues that are before us and do something positive about it through the bill. At the moment, we are not doing enough that is positive through the measures that are proposed.

Amendments 122 to 125 and 132 to 139 seek to remove the provisions that tether the accreditation committee to qualifications Scotland. Most notable of those is amendment 133, which I strongly support. Amendment 133 would provide for the accreditation committee’s annual reporting to be done independently, as I think that Pam Duncan-Glancy mentioned, rather than as part of qualifications Scotland’s corporate reporting cycle. That is vital. A body cannot be both the subject and the author of its own regulatory assessment. That is common sense. The amendment would ensure transparency and avoid the consolidation of narrative control within one body.

Amendment 134, which pre-empts amendment 135, seeks to clarify that the Scottish ministers should not have the power to direct the accreditation committee’s operational decisions. It is another safeguard for independence; indeed, I think that the cabinet secretary has picked up—and rightly so—on the mood music with regard to the need for any changes to be seen as ensuring that independence.

The OECD warned that the current ecosystem of policy delivery and oversight in Scottish education creates confusion over roles and a risk of conformity of thought in national decision making. Empowering an accreditation committee to act independently would be an antidote to such a tendency.

Amendment 173, which I support, completes the picture, as it seeks to create a new independent accreditation committee, which would be placed under the chief inspector. That committee would not be subject to direction from either the inspector or ministers in its operational work, only in high-level framework setting. It would be composed of experts, produce its own reports and make its own decisions on whether qualifications are fit for purpose. That is real independence—not performative independence, but procedural, structural and cultural independence.

Amendments 73, 287, 291, 292, 295 and 167 would make the necessary consequential adjustments to the rest of the bill by removing references to internal accreditation committees and eliminating redundancy and contradiction.

Finally, amendments 206 and 207 seek to amend the transitional provisions. I support amendment 206, which would ensure that legacy language regarding the SQA’s accreditation powers does not survive the transition. I encourage the committee—I should be using the word “encourage”, as I do not have a vote—to oppose amendment 207, which would dilute the clean break that we seek to achieve.

I want to make one final observation. This debate is not just about qualifications—it is about values. It is about whether we, as a Parliament, are prepared to ensure that the systems that we design are worthy of the people whom they serve. The calls for reform were not abstract; they came from learners, teachers, school leaders, parents and employers, all of whom wanted a system that they could trust. Professor Muir reflected that when he said that

“The replacement of SQA and the restructuring or reform of Education Scotland is a starter, but ... more is needed to ensure that the education system in Scotland is fit for purpose for current and future learners in a changing world.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 23 March 2022; c 3.]

Accreditation is not a mere technical detail in the context of the bill. It is, I would argue, one of the firm and substantial issues that the committee at stage 2 must deliberate and decide on. It is the measure by which every learner’s work is validated, and it is the reason that employers, universities and society at large take a Scottish qualification seriously. If we do not get this right, we undermine the credibility of the entire reform programme.

The Government has said that it wants a qualification body that is modern, trusted and fit for purpose, but that cannot be achieved by merging old functions under new names. It requires structural separation; it requires clear, independent lines of scrutiny; and it requires the courage to follow the evidence, even when the evidence demands fundamental change. That is what my amendment 316 and this suite of amendments does, and that is why I commend them to the committee.

I am grateful to all who have contributed to the debate so far. I was at a bit of a loss when the cabinet secretary talked about the need for further time for more detailed consideration. There seems to have been an eternal consideration of detail, and that is what the bill was supposed to address. For the bill to say that, in effect, we are going to have an even more elongated period of further consideration seems quite ridiculous.

I am not entirely sure that I understand why the cabinet secretary is at pains to point out that the Muir report came before her time in office. I am happy to give way so that she can intervene and explain why, because it might be due to something very simple. However, I am not sure what I am to infer from what she has said. There have been repeated references to the fact that this happened before she was in office or that this was before her time. I hope that that is not some kind of diplomatic disowning of the Muir report.

You earlier alluded to the fact—I think that it is undeniable—that the cabinet secretary has shown no inclination to consider all the different options with an open mind. You mentioned her body language, which I thought was a bit cruel, as I think that the body language has been fine, cabinet secretary

I will address amendment 221 in my name, along with amendments 222 and 223, which Ross Greer has already referenced. Together, they propose important refinements to the staffing provisions that relate to the new body, qualifications Scotland. To my mind, this group of amendments goes to the heart of how the agency will function in practice and its organisational culture.

I got a bit excited earlier about the importance of leadership, but I will probably get even more excited about the importance of culture. I think that the two go together and are symbiotic in many ways. I am familiar, as I am sure many other members are, with the concept that culture eats strategy for breakfast. The best-laid schemes and plans are all liable to perish when they come into contact with poor leadership and poor culture. My amendments are an attempt to address the issues of operational culture, internal ethos and, most important, the rights and duties of the individuals who will be employed and specifically charged with delivering reform. If we are serious about delivering structural and cultural reform, we must attend not only to who leads public bodies but to how staff are appointed, supported and held to proper standards of conduct and impartiality.

My amendments in this group seek to embed those principles more firmly in the legislation. I will unpack amendment 221, which says:

“Qualifications Scotland may only appoint a person as chief executive if Qualifications Scotland and the Scottish Ministers consider the person ... a fit and proper person”,

which speaks for itself, and if the person

“has experience of leadership”.

I expect any reading of that provision to suggest that the person has had successful experience of leadership, that they have led a progressive organisation, that they have seen change managed in a whole organisation, and that they have skills, knowledge and expertise in education.

Ross Greer and I are perhaps at opposite ends of this discussion, but an issue that is regularly raised with me by teachers and educationalists is that the people who are in charge of the significant institutions that define the Scottish educational landscape sometimes do not have a feel for education, because they do not have the experience of real-world contact that the people who are commenting to me have. That view has been raised with me by a number of people whom I consider to be experts.

The person appointed should have some

“skills, knowledge and expertise in ... the regulation of educational qualifications”.

They should have an understanding of that field of interest. They should also have operated in a public sector setting, because, as I alluded to, that can be quite a different environment for someone who has not had experience of public sector governance.

No—it is evidence. It is the evidence that is presented and available, as it would be in responding to any such situation. I would not expect anybody to respond to vagaries of opinion—I would expect such things to be substantiated by firm evidence. That is a requirement of sound leadership: that you gather evidence. That may involve different opinions, but you should be at the heart of seeking evidence, in whatever form you can get it, in order to be fair and transparent in the way that you arrive at your decisions.

Amendment 222 would also ensure that, under the chief executive’s leadership, qualifications Scotland would adhere to the Nolan principles—the seven principles of public life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Those are not, and should never be treated as, platitudes; they are the ethical framework by which all public servants in Scotland ought to be judged.

Again, the bill as introduced is largely silent on those matters. It creates a body, establishes a board and defines functions, but it says almost nothing about the internal responsibilities of those who will actually deliver on that body’s mission. I recognise that we cannot legislate for outcomes, but we can legislate for structures and expectations that make good outcomes more likely. That is why I offer these amendments, which seek to do just that.

I turn to amendment 223, to which Ross Greer referred in his remarks. The amendment proposes that the chief executive be appointed for a fixed and non-renewable term of seven years. Again, that is about protecting the independence of the role. If we are serious about having an inspectorate, or any chief executive or anybody in a high-profile public role, who can speak truth to power and who can challenge national policy and local practice, I feel that, in statute, we must insulate that role from the possibility that the independence of the chief executive might be compromised by considerations of future reappointment.

A non-renewable term would also remove the risk of perceived favour seeking, and it would liberate the postholder to lead fearlessly and impartially. Seven years seems to be a reasonable period.

I am always grateful for your interventions, because they are always a novel and exciting experience. I really did not think that we would manage to cover bin collection as part of our consideration of the Education (Scotland) Bill, but we have done.

To answer your question directly, I am sure that you would agree that, when it comes to leadership qualities, one of the most important aspects relates to succession. For the reasons that I have outlined, given that we are talking about a period of office that is non-renewable, anyone who has an eye on their passions as a leader being sustained in the future will want to build in a lot of work on succession. That is one of the qualities of leadership that I would look for most in recruiting a chief executive for any body.

I think that seven years is a reasonable period. It is long enough to ensure strategic continuity and impact and to provide for succession, but it is also limited enough to allow for fresh leadership at appropriate intervals. I am pretty keen on there being lots of leaders and lots of opportunities for leaders. No one should read anything into my comments in that regard as relating to any other sphere.

Such an approach is consistent with the approach that is taken to other senior public appointments in Scotland and beyond. It represents a safeguard against politicisation—I worried about pronouncing that word the moment I wrote it—against the entrenchment of authority and against the dilution of challenge. Those are important points.

The bill as introduced is largely silent on those matters. It creates a new body and defines its functions, but I want it to go further than that. I want it to clearly describe the expectations with regard to the people who will hold critical leadership roles. I return to the key principle at stake, which I mentioned in my previous remarks to the committee—that of trust. The public will not judge the new agency by its legal structure alone; they will judge it by its conduct, its openness and the way in which its staff interact with learners, educators and the broader system. If we are serious about having a new start and making a clean break from the SQA’s legacy, we cannot afford to be casual about the internal ethical framework of the new agency.

My amendments seek to address precisely that issue. They seek not to burden the organisation with bureaucracy but to equip it with the ethical scaffolding that is necessary for integrity and accountability. Therefore, I urge my colleagues on the committee to support amendments 221, 222 and 223. I think that they are moderate, principled and constructive proposals that would strengthen the foundation on which qualifications Scotland is built. I ask the Government to consider whether the bill in its current form goes far enough to underpin and guarantee the operational culture that we all know is needed to serve the best interests of Scotland’s learners and educators.

We are always grateful for the illumination that you bring to my amendments.

That is correct. Thank you for clarifying my own amendment. Yes, there is an “or” at the end of paragraph (c)(ii). I am trying to illustrate the significance of both of those requirements. To go back to John Mason’s quest for perfection earlier, we would all agree that it would be ideal if someone had all those qualifications, but we definitely want someone who has some experience of the regulatory environment relating to educational qualifications or some experience in public sector governance. You are absolutely right.

As I said, the issue is of profound significance, because one of the clearest criticisms that has been levelled at the SQA has been about the lack of transparency and accountability in its internal structure. In Professor Muir’s report, “Putting Learners at the Centre”, he made clear that a culture of defensiveness and lack of openness has been allowed to grow, leading to a perception of unaccountability and remoteness from the educational community. My amendment is an attempt to nail down that the chief executive would be someone who is very connected to, not remote from, the educational community.

Amendment 222 would build on that principle by ensuring that the chief executive

“demonstrates a commitment to the values of openness, transparency and accountability”.

I will unpack the amendment for the committee’s consideration. It would require qualifications Scotland to have

“clear and accessible ... decision-making”.

It would ensure

“that standards and assessments in relation to relevant qualifications are subject to appropriate scrutiny”,

and it would place in statute a requirement to engage with relevant and important viewpoints.

There would also be an obligation in law to

“publish data, reports and decisions in relation to the exercise of ... Qualifications Scotland’s functions”

and to

“respond appropriately to developments in ... education policy ... the needs of children, young people and other persons undertaking a relevant qualification”

and

“employers”.

Would it not simply be a case of taking the existing allocation of resources in Education Scotland and moving it to somewhere else? That is not an increase; it is a simple transfer of resources.