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?

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?

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.]

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 on that 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.