I thank the cabinet secretary for her engagement with the amendments in this group, and in particular for the offer to work on some of them at stage 3. I will come to that as I go through my amendments.

The amendments in this section are very important. Suffice it to say that all the amendments to the bill are important, but these are about giving a voice on the board of an organisation not just so that we can guarantee that it has expertise on it, but so that we can get trust back into the centre of our qualifications structure.

Important decisions about the membership of qualifications Scotland need to be taken, with a variety of different interests at heart, and the amendments in my name in this group try to make sure that that happens. We have seen what happens when we do not have that; we can have a disconnected education and skills system if we do not have representatives who recognise what is needed for future skills as well as what is needed for school qualifications.

It is important that we have trade union representation—I intervened on the cabinet secretary earlier in that respect. It is crucial that we recognise the role of trade unions. This committee has spent a considerable time arguing for the trade unions of colleges to be represented on boards, and that has to extend to qualifications Scotland, too. I do not think that some of the amendments that the cabinet secretary has lodged do quite what I am trying to do, which is to give a direct voice to staff on boards. If qualifications are to be really meaningful, we have to ensure that they are relevant to the real world, too, and I have also lodged some amendments in relation to that.

My amendments 211 and 212 increase the size of qualifications Scotland’s board to between 10 and 12 people, which is really important. The amendments are direct alternatives to the cabinet secretary’s amendments 41 and 42; the cabinet secretary is looking to increase the number on the board to between 7 and 11, but my amendment creates a board of between 10 and 12, which is necessary to accommodate the broader representation that I have suggested in my amendments 216 and 218. By increasing the size of the board, I am ensuring that staff, education unions and industry leaders can contribute to the governance of qualifications Scotland without sacrificing expertise or limiting the diversity of the boards. A board of that size will ensure that the qualifications Scotland governance model is participative and responsive, and I am pleased that the cabinet secretary is prepared to support the proposal.

I am not sure that amendment 27, in Ross Greer’s name, is strong enough to guarantee any trade union representation on the boards; it also appears to—unintentionally, I imagine—exclude representatives of teachers and college staff. I believe that the amendments in my name provide a more balanced offer and give voice to teachers and staff in schools and colleges. I would be willing to work with the cabinet secretary and Ross Greer at stage 3 to find alternatives, if both were prepared to do so. I have been trying to keep on top of the numbers of the amendments that the cabinet secretary spoke to—I think that I heard her say that she would be prepared to consider the matter at stage 3, and I am hoping that Ross Greer might, too.

Amendment 213 requires Scottish ministers to consult the whole board of qualifications Scotland when making regulations. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary supports that, because it is really important. I take the cabinet secretary’s point that a chair would consult their board in ordinary circumstances—indeed, I am quite sure that they would—but we have seen some less than acceptable circumstances in the sphere that we are discussing, and anything that we can do to protect against such circumstances will be important. That is why amendment 213, in my name, has been lodged.

Amendment 214 requires one member of qualifications Scotland to undertake a qualifications Scotland qualification, replacing the requirement for a member to

“appear to have knowledge of the interests of persons undertaking a relevant qualification.”

I understand the point that the cabinet secretary has made and the amendment that Ross Greer has lodged on the matter. I think that this is really important, because people who are undertaking qualifications in real time can tell us exactly the sort of experience that they had during the history of qualification and exactly what is happening in schools and what support they are getting. They can also give us incredible insight into the ways in which assessment interacts with curriculum, which we know has been a concern in the past. That is why I feel quite strongly about that particular amendment.

Amendment 215 ensures that schoolteachers are represented on the qualifications Scotland board. I take the point about other teachers, such as college teachers, and the fact that, given the pre-emption in relation to her amendment 43, the cabinet secretary said that she would be prepared to bring the matter back at stage 3, supporting this amendment, which her own amendment pre-empts—I think that I have those numbers right. On that basis, providing that schoolteachers are represented on the board in a stage 3 amendment that we can agree on, I would be prepared to hold amendment 215 until stage 3.

Amendment 216 requires the board to contain a representative of a

“trade union operating in Scotland.”

I think that that ensures that the new board is informed by the voices of those with a stake in the delivery of the new qualifications in schools, colleges and other training facilities, not only by the voices of those who manage them. We need that, because previous reforms have not engaged appropriately with front-line educators. I spoke earlier about the distance between the front-line decisions and decision making and the clutter in the middle—indeed, I think that my colleague wants to comment on that.

Far from duplicating any processes, it would bring to the system the coherence that all the experts talked about in their evidence to this committee and that Ken Muir mentioned in his report. I keep referring to that report, but I think that most people around the table will accept that it has been pivotal to this discussion.

I think that this move would allow us to do what we really need to do: reform the functions, ensure that the accreditation function is separated from the SQA—or qualifications Scotland, which the bill would set up—and bring the curriculum to the forefront of things. We know the situation with assessment just now. Indeed, one of the reasons for Professor Hayward’s review is the fact that a lot of the teaching that goes on in schools is driven by exams. The member has heard evidence to that effect.

The curriculum has to be driven by what young people in Scotland will need in the future to contribute to society in whatever way they wish as adults. That will require the curriculum not to be driven by exams; in fact, exams will have to work very differently to how they work just now. I think that my suite of amendments would ensure that.

I realise that I am straying into arguments that I will be making in respect of the later groupings on curriculum Scotland, but we have to accept that, as countless reports have said, the structures are not right. We know that the distance between front-line professionals and Government decision making is quite big, and the ground between is cluttered. My amendments try to give the Government a suite of options to bring more coherence to the system, and I would like to think that we could find some support for them at this stage.

I will conclude—you will be pleased to hear, convener—by saying that amendments 115, 116, 118, 122 to 124, 126, 127, 132 to 134, 137, 139 and 206, all of which have been lodged and spoken to by Willie Rennie and all of which I support, are consequential to the options presented in amendments 291, 295 and the other amendments in the group. I encourage members across the committee to accept that there are several options in front of us for doing what we know pupils, staff, trade unions and experts want us to do—to separate the accreditation function from the SQA and qualifications Scotland in order to restore trust in the system.

Along with me, the member will have sat through several evidence sessions that the committee has held with stakeholders. As well as hearing the same evidence from stakeholders as the member has heard in committee, which I think is reflected in the amendments that we have lodged, I have engaged with Education Scotland, the SCQF Partnership, previous inspectors and Ken Muir, as well as pupils, parents and the profession. As the member would expect, I have engaged widely on my proposal. Giving Education Scotland the accreditation function would ensure that we had a robust and respected qualifications system in which the awarding body was not marking its own homework.

Contrary to the cabinet secretary’s concerns about resourcing, I think that there are ways and means—as my colleague Stephen Kerr said—of ensuring that there could be a simple transfer of resources. The resource implications of my proposal should not preclude it from being an option. For the sake of clarity, I point out that the transfer of the accreditation function that amendment 291 provides for would not apply to the accreditation of degrees.

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.

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?

Thank you, convener. I was a bit premature when I intervened earlier—I should have said good morning to the cabinet secretary. Thank you for appearing before us, cabinet secretary.

I am quite disappointed that, on one of the most contested aspects of this version of the Government’s bill, the cabinet secretary has set out that the Government is not prepared to accept any amendments other than its own. That is not in the spirit of how I thought the cabinet secretary was engaging in this process, nor is it what the people who gave evidence to the committee would have been expecting. Indeed, some other committee members have surprised me slightly by their approach, too.

This issue really gets to the heart of why we are here and why we have this bill. To say that the bill has been a long time in coming is a bit of an understatement. The cabinet secretary has rightly pointed out that it predates her time in office, and it predates that of a previous cabinet secretary, too. In fact, it goes back to the current First Minister’s own bill, which did not succeed. It has been quite a long period of time, during which learners, staff in schools and staff in the SQA and all the other education bodies in Scotland have been left in limbo. Therefore, for the cabinet secretary to come here with an amendment that merely puts them into limbo for another two years is not, in my view, satisfactory.

The case for separating the accreditation function from qualifications Scotland has been made not just by people who have given evidence to the committee, but by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Professor Muir and, indeed, other Government advisers. However, the bill does not implement any meaningful reform in that regard, nor does it address some of the issues of credibility—or incredibility, if that is a better way to describe it—that have arisen as a result of some of the practices of the SQA, which my colleague Ross Greer has alluded to, not least the 2020 exam debacle, in which the poorest students were downgraded.

The profession, pupils and experts have all spoken with clarity on the matter. They have all said that the failure to separate the accreditation function makes the bill process a bit of a performative exercise and means that it stops short of meaningful reform. Allowing the new agency to mark its own homework would damage credibility. We need to restore credibility to the system, which is what my amendments and those in the name of Willie Rennie, which I support, would do.

The good thing about this group of amendments is that it gives the Government a lot of options, so it is disappointing for the Government to say that it will not pick any of those but will instead go with a two-year review. My amendment 291 would give Education Scotland the accreditation function, and amendment 357 is consequential to that. Amendment 292 would place a duty on Education Scotland to prepare and publish an annual report, in line with its having the accreditation function. As has previously been said, the purpose of those amendments is to provide the separation of functions that was suggested in Ken Muir’s report “Putting Learners at the Centre”.

If Jackie Dunbar lets me get to the end of what the amendment does, I will let her in then.

I think that amendment 295 presents opportunities arising from the extensive research carried out by a lot of the reviews, not just Ken Muir’s. I am thinking of, for example, the national conversation’s review of education and others. It could ensure that the expertise of subject specialists and the needs and views of young people are taken into account when the curriculum is being developed, and I think that placing the accreditation function with the new body would bring some really useful coherence to the system.

If curriculum Scotland had that function, it would kill two birds with one stone—for want of another way of describing it—and it is probably the most cost-effective way of doing everything suggested in Ken Muir’s “Putting Learners at the Centre” report. I also think that it would ensure that qualifications are developed and accredited in conjunction with the aspirations and ambitions of the national curriculum.

First, I apologise to my colleague Martin Whitfield, whose amendment 226 I overlooked in my opening remarks. I think that it is safe to say that it is a good amendment, for all the reasons that he set out, and I would support it.

I have listened carefully to what members have suggested. I will, therefore, seek to withdraw amendment 225, on the basis of what I think is an offer to work at stage 3 to address the issues that I highlighted with regard to ensuring that people with protected characteristics, people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and care-experienced people have been taken into account, and that due regard is paid to those groups.

I think that that speaks to the discussion between Willie Rennie and Martin Whitfield just now about the young person at the back of the room who has not necessarily been heard; my intention, through amendment 225, was to try to ensure that they are considered in that respect. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw amendment 225 at this point and bring it back with—I hope—the Government’s support.

Is it okay to do all the amendments now, convener?

I will not seek to move amendment 227 at this stage, not necessarily for the reasons that the Government and Ross Greer have set out in relation to the involvement of parents on the committee, but because of the point about broadening the definition and being more inclusive to include carers, as well as, presumably, parents and guardians of carers.

However, it is important that parents are represented, and by bringing the amendment back at stage 3 we could perhaps address the issue that Ross Greer highlighted. By that point, we will know what the situation is with the strategic advisory council, and the amendment would, at that stage, at least give us some provision—I do not want to say that it would be a fall-back, because I think that it is a really good amendment, and parents should be on the committee. Nevertheless, bringing back the amendment at stage 3 will allow for two things: it will enable me to tidy it up and include language around carers to be inclusive in that respect, and we will also, at that point, have a clearer picture of what is happening with the strategic advisory council.

I will, therefore, not seek to move amendment 227. The discussion between Willie Rennie and Martin Whitfield has been helpful and important, and there was a lot in that conversation to instruct how we do business in this Parliament.

I also support amendment 32. I would be keen to progress amendment 228, in my name, at this stage, so I will move it when we come to that point.

Amendment 225, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 49 moved—[Jenny Gilruth].