On the basis of the cabinet secretary’s offer to work together at stage 3, I am happy not to press amendment 232 or move amendment 234.

I am not convinced that it would be useful to allow that level of flex, as I might call it, so that qualifications Scotland could decide whether or not to work with a group of people. In the past few years, we have seen a complete failure of the national qualifications body to collaborate well. It worries me that we would weaken that duty.

We are supportive of Ross Greer’s amendment 3.

My amendment 230 seeks to place a duty on qualifications Scotland to make arrangements to ensure the quality of the qualifications that develop under the terms of the legislation. The questions that we have had in recent weeks and months about specific qualifications—higher history is an example—are such that we need to ensure as much robustness, credibility and trust in the system as we possibly can.

There is a gap in the bill in that respect, because it does not include a clear mechanism for safeguarding such standards. As such a mechanism is important, I have lodged amendment 230 to ensure that qualifications are consistently high in quality and are credible. I believe that that will command the confidence of learners, employers and the public, which is exactly what the reforms should be doing.

I will start where Ross Greer left off, because I understand his concern about the regularity of meetings. If a meeting were to be put in just because it had to happen, that could become quite cumbersome. I will listen to what others have to say about that, but I take his point seriously.

This group of amendments is about embedding a culture of meaningful consultation. We have spent quite a lot of time this morning talking about the importance of consultation and collaboration by the national qualifications body, and the amendments seek to strengthen those things in order to overcome some of the concerns that we have had in the past about the SQA, perhaps, digging in its heels with regard to whether it should be talking to other people or taking on board their views. This is an attempt to try to avoid that happening again.

I get that culture change is difficult to legislate for, but there are lessons that we have to learn, and I see no reason why we would not put something in legislation to give a nudge, at the very least, to the relevant culture that we are hoping to achieve. That is the purpose of the amendments in this group.

My amendment 242 strengthens the consultation duty between qualifications Scotland and the strategic advisory council by requiring them to meet at least once a quarter—notwithstanding the point that I have just made about the timescales, which I am prepared to consider as the debate goes on—and, additionally, at any time that either party considers it necessary.

The amendment also removes the caveat that qualifications Scotland need only consult the SAC where it appears appropriate for it to do so. Again—and this is much like our previous discussion—the SQA might have felt in the past that it was not necessarily appropriate for it to consult particular organisations or bodies that all of us would probably have accepted that it would have been useful for it to have consulted. Therefore, amendment 242, in my name, takes out what I suppose is a sort of get-out clause for the qualifications body.

There is also an opportunity to trigger consultation with qualifications Scotland and the SAC. It means that, if we again find ourselves in the sort of situation that we had with higher history, there is an opportunity for the advisory council to say, “We need to have a meeting to discuss this”—bearing in mind the council’s role and who would be on it—and the same would apply in the other direction, so that qualifications Scotland could seek the council’s advice.

I think that that is crucial, given that the SAC is intended to be a much-needed platform that will include the voices of learners, teachers, practitioners, parents and other stakeholders representing wider society—voices that I think have been missing in the past. We must do everything that we can in the bill to create the structures that will develop the culture that we know is desperately needed, and the amendment makes it clear that Scotland’s new qualifications body would be publicly accountable to those whom it serves and would give a place to the lived experience of learners and their families. Therefore, I urge members to support amendment 242.

We are minded to support many of Ross Greer’s amendments in the group. Martin Whitfield’s comments about committees are important and we have to remember what the role of Parliament is. Nonetheless, as he and Ross Greer recognised, too often the recommendations of committees, such as this one and others, can be cast aside. We do a lot of work and we hear from a lot of people. It is important that, at the very least, due regard should be paid to them.

Forgive me.

I appreciate the points that the cabinet secretary has made, and I understand that the convener has amendments in that space in group 21. I am reasonable, so I am prepared to listen to that discussion and think about how we can take the issues forward.

However, I am quite clear that there needs to be a mechanism to enable concerns to be addressed. I acknowledge that the convener has put forward suggestions about that mechanism, as I have done in amendment 254, and I would like to hear at least an acceptance from the cabinet secretary that something needs to exist in order for the review to be looked at. Perhaps she can intervene in order to confirm that.

This is not only about higher history; there have, in recent history, been other problems with exams, not least, of course, what happened in 2020, and there should be the ability to review those qualifications and how the exams are carried out. I think that the Government has a role in that respect, but if it does not want that role, and if we do not want the qualifications body to be seen to be marking its own homework, I am interested to see the alternative that the Government puts forward.

On that basis—

Yes.

Amendment 282 would ensure that the strategic advisory council’s role is not just consultative but also visible by requiring qualifications Scotland to show, in its corporate plan, how it works with the strategic advisory council and responds to its advice. Embedding that in the corporate plan would strengthen transparency and reinforce the council’s influence in shaping the strategic direction of qualifications Scotland. The amendment adds to the other amendments in the group in the name of Ross Greer.

Requiring transparency in how qualifications Scotland will work with the strategic advisory council and respond to its advice by placing that in the corporate plan will give assurance to people who are looking to ensure that qualifications Scotland is operating differently to the way that the current body operates and that the people who are part of the strategic advisory council, including, crucially, those whom my colleague Ross Greer just set out, have an opportunity to influence the organisation’s corporate plan. That is why amendment 282, in my name, is important.

Can you say whether those regulations would be made under the negative or affirmative procedure?

I support the amendment in principle. However, there are a couple of potential changes that could be made to the wording that might address Ross Greer’s point. Subsection 2(a) states:

“the circumstances where the person undertaking an examination may receive additional time”.

Is that something that would be set out by qualifications Scotland or is it something that would be bespoke and specific to the individual? It is important that such things are recognised, but would the member consider working with me and others to bring the amendment back at stage 3?

The point is well made. I note that I saw agreement from the cabinet secretary that stage 3 discussions are still on the table. That is really important. What I have tried to do with my amendments is recognise that we cannot reform the education system by continuing to do reform after reform and have a perpetual cycle of reforms. We have to get it right this time. I tried to create the space in the legislation for a body that could do what all the reports recommended, which is to reform the curriculum function and to separate the accreditation function. I have tried to do that by proposing a new body as a mechanism through which we could do it.

I still think that the bill was completely silent on some of the curriculum functions and that it could have done more regarding Education Scotland. There are amendments on that in my name and in other members’ names, as well. I did not want to miss the opportunity in the bill for us to put the curriculum at the heart of what we are doing for education in Scotland—driven by learners and by what is happening on the front line and in schools, rather than driven by assessment. The amendments that I have lodged—I am, of course, still speaking to them—could do that. However, as I agreed last week, I will not move the amendments on the basis that we will continue to have this discussion at stage 3.