Chamber and committees

You said that you had everything specifically—

Okay. Thank you.

As the former convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, I am delighted to speak in today’s debate. I thank everyone for their kind words on my convenership; it was a role that I loved, and I know that I have passed it on to the very safe hands of my colleague Douglas Ross.

For years, now, the Scottish Government has been promising to reform Scottish education. We heard about the timeline from Ross Greer, who, despite his age, has been in the Parliament for a little bit longer than I have. Although the main catalyst for some of the change was the utterly disastrous handling of exams during the pandemic, the concerns had been bubbling away for a long time. Scotland’s declining performance predates Covid, so we cannot use that as an excuse.

Under the Scottish National Party, education in Scotland has fallen in international rankings, and Scotland’s mean programme for international student assessment scores in maths and science are at a record low. The SNP has also failed—and is failing—to close the attainment gap, with the gap between the poorest and richest primary pupils in reading, writing, literacy and numeracy remaining similar to before the pandemic.

The Education (Scotland) Bill aims to replace the SQA with a new body, qualifications Scotland, which will take on functions related to developing and awarding qualifications, accrediting other qualifications, and providing advice to ministers on those matters.

The bill will also establish the office of His Majesty’s chief inspector of education as a new independent body for education inspections. The inspectorate will be responsible for school and early learning inspections and for evaluating broader educational services.

The Education, Children and Young People Committee’s stage 1 report makes it clear that there must be a major change in the education system. However, it also makes it clear that the SNP’s current plans to replace the SQA will deliver no real change at all. The report states that the SQA’s reputation “has become tarnished” and that legislation alone cannot change culture. After all, much of culture change is down to leadership, changes to ways of working and a commitment to doing things very differently.

I will focus on two areas: the change from the SQA to the new qualifications Scotland body and the independence of the new inspectorate. We have heard much about those two things already.

The first issue, which I have already touched on, is the culture change that is needed. That must happen, and it will be driven by leadership, with leaders being willing to accept that they have made mistakes. Leaders must listen to concerns and make the necessary changes from the top down. I am concerned that that is not happening right now.

The EIS, the nation’s largest teaching union, has also criticised the bill. The organisation highlighted concerns about the lack of separation between the new qualifications body’s accreditation, regulating and awarding functions.

The Association of Directors of Education in Scotland said:

“There is a danger that change will be minimal and that the existing elements of the system are being repackaged and reinstated in a different order. This does not meet what is required or recommended by Muir, Hayward and OECD ... A change of name and structure is not a sufficient response to Muir and OECD recommendations ... There is a disproportionate focus on structures when cultural and behavioural change in national organisations is also required.”

ADES also said that the bill looked “autocratic and top down”, and it questioned why the same personnel would be running the new organisations.

School Leaders Scotland said:

“Although the Bill deals with the replacement of the SQA with Qualifications Scotland, there needs to be a complete change of culture in the new body. It cannot be a rebranding ... with the same attitudes, and a lack of transparency and of trust.”

The Muir review recommended that the accreditation function be separated from the awarding function under the new arrangements. Professor Muir said that it was inappropriate to have the functions together, because it appeared to some that the SQA was marking its own homework. We have heard much about that concern today.

If the Education (Scotland) Bill is changing the SQA into qualifications Scotland with all the same people in the same place despite their endless failures, how can that be anything but a rebrand? When the cabinet secretary responded to Ms Duncan-Glancy’s intervention earlier today, it was encouraging to hear that complete separation might well be on the cards.

The second point that I want to look at is the independence of the new inspector. The report states:

“A key aim of the Bill is to strengthen the independence of the inspectorate.”

However, it also states:

“Ministers will retain the ability to direct the Chief Inspector to secure the inspection of specific or types of educational establishments and a power to specify the intervals at which inspections take place.”

From the evidence that I heard during my time as convener of the committee, I believe that it is vitally important that the inspector reports to the Parliament, not to the Scottish Government and ministers. The need for the new HM chief inspector to be, and to be seen to be, independent was repeatedly stressed by stakeholders including Dr Judith McClure CBE, who stated:

“It is vital for the future development of Scottish Education that there should be a regular assessment by qualified Inspectors of the performance, achievements and problems in individual schools and other organisations providing education. These assessments will be of use only if the inspectorate is independent and led by a gifted and experienced HM Chief Inspector of Education who is independent in this work and understands what team leadership and planning mean.”

You will recall that some of the evidence that we heard at committee was that, at some point, we have to say no to some of the many interest groups being included. Their representation cannot be limitless; we cannot include everybody.

You rightly point out that the stage 1 report is critical of the bill and recommends a suite of changes and amendments that are coming. Like you, I am a bit concerned about where the new-found division has come from.

I will, Presiding Officer.

I hope that the SNP will reflect on the committee’s critical conclusions and come back with meaningful plans that will deliver the changes that Scottish education desperately needs.

I welcome the fact that Ross Greer has reintroduced the amendment, which, importantly, now includes the requirement for a consultation first.

As someone who has a surname beginning with a W, I whole-heartedly agree with what Mr Gibson has outlined and understand the arguments for randomised ballots. When I first stood as a candidate in the Pentland Hills ward for the City of Edinburgh Council, I was one of two candidates. The other candidate for the Conservative Party had a surname that began with a B, whereas my surname began with a W. I found out after the election that, if I had gone back far enough in my family tree, I could have called myself Anderson, but there we go.

I am glad that we are looking at the issue, and I am concerned with ensuring that we make the change following robust consultation. One of the first things that I received from Mr Hepburn when I rejoined the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in October was a letter addressing accessibility and other issues during elections, and a pack that contained a trial tactile voting device.

I have genuine concerns about how randomisation would work alongside something like that. How, for example, would a voter with a visual impairment prepare themselves to vote with no knowledge as to the order in which candidates may or may not appear on a ballot paper? The same conclusions may be just as relevant for voters with other impairments and disabilities. Randomisation would make things more complex, confusing and unfamiliar for such people as they cast their votes.

I understand all the evidence that Mr Gibson has outlined, but the unintended consequences of our desire to make things equal for those with a surname beginning with W deserve much more detailed consultation and scrutiny.

Mr Johnson has almost answered the questions that I have on amendments 9 and 8. He has spoken about historic alliances that have come about from various parties across the chamber, but the difference is that the rest of us are all sitting here as members of only one party.

I still interpret amendments 9 and 8 as giving the Labour Party and those who are Co-operative Party members an unfair advantage over others sitting in the chamber. Despite what he said to Mr Stephen Kerr about third-party expenditure being included to ensure proper accounting, I still have concerns and the amendments are a challenge for me.

Mr Johnson called them useful amendments, but I am also concerned that they might not be quite as useful for Parliament as they are for the members who sit with the Labour Party and the Co-operative Party.

Scottish Conservatives understand that electoral policy does not stand still and that the bill will update the law in time for the 2026 Holyrood election. Electoral reform that improves the running of Scottish elections and, at the same time, makes our democracy more transparent is very welcome, and I thank the minister for working closely with us throughout stages 2 and 3.

Although my colleague Annie Wells’s amendments were not pressed to a vote, it was important to debate the issues that she presented to the chamber. Earlier, Martin Whitfield acknowledged the challenges with balancing various rights. I do not believe that sex offenders should ever be allowed to hold public office, regardless of the level, so I hope that, at some point, the Government will take the bold step of reviewing that complex issue, because I do not believe that it can be ignored.

I will briefly touch on the amendments that focused on dual mandates, whether they involve councillors, MSPs, MPs or members of the House of Lords. I am quite relieved that the proposals will first have to go to consultation in order for us to gain a better understanding of the unintended consequences that they might have, and that some of them may progress no further than that. Martin Whitfield mentioned some of the pragmatic elements in relation to costs and having elections that are run concurrently, given the different electoral methods—and the instances of different incorrect instructions that have happened in the past.

I certainly hope that any consultation will be open and fair, and that views will be accepted without any prejudged conclusions. I had a dual mandate for a period of 12 months: I was a councillor for the Pentland Hills ward in Edinburgh while I was a regional MSP for Lothian. It was a genuine privilege to do both, and I believe that there was not a second during that period when I let down any of my constituents, either as a councillor or as an MSP. I say to Mr Cole-Hamilton that that is perhaps because it was not hundreds and hundred of miles away, but just up the hill.

I do not think that I would ever have become an MSP had I not been a councillor first. My involvement in local government was a great place to gain experience and cut my political teeth while letting me stay heavily involved in my local community and learn more about what other opportunities in politics exist, such as being an MSP or an MP. If that was no longer possible, I know that this Parliament would suffer from missing out on a diverse range of potential MSPs.

A lot has been made of elected representatives double jobbing and taking double pay while they do dual roles. As an Edinburgh councillor, the payroll system made it quite straightforward for me to arrange for my councillor salary to go directly to two nominated charities in the Pentland Hills ward, without the money ever coming to me or my bank account. It was an honour to support those two charities for the period of 12 months, and I know from feedback that the money was spent locally and directly supported families and individuals in need.

The minister highlighted some of Bob Doris’s amendments that spoke to the high rates of spoiled ballots, and Martin Whitfield spoke about some of the animations that we all see. We also heard Ross Greer’s ideas about compulsory registration—or, rather, automatic registration, to get the terminology right.

So much of what we have heard today was also discussed before this afternoon. As Mr Greer pointed out, maximising participation will enhance the trust that people have in politicians. We all need that to be restored quickly.

With the Scottish Government introducing further electoral reform legislation next year, in readiness for implementation in time for the next Holyrood election, we will work constructively with colleagues from across the chamber when the time comes, as we have done so far.

The minister spoke of the many planned consultations. I hope that they will be managed to ensure that there is successful engagement and that the public does not get consultationitis. It is, after all, in all our interests to create a more transparent and smoothly run Scotland in which people across the country go to the polls to choose their elected representatives.

The minister called this Parliament’s bill. To conclude, I formally state that the Scottish Conservatives will support the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill.

It does not own the buses.