Chamber and committees

That is a very fair point that I should have recognised before. I will take that into consideration.

On the scrutiny of the intervals for inspection, amendment 156 sets out that the minister must also seek the relevant committee’s view before issuing any directions.

My amendments are relatively minor, certainly in comparison with Sue Webber’s amendments. I still think that ministers should have a role, but I think that we should pull back and give the chief inspector greater independence in order to give greater confidence to the central bodies in education. Other members have lodged other amendments that serve the same purpose, which is to nudge the role towards greater independence, but without it giving it the lone wolf status that George Adam so clearly craves.

Some people would say—and I would agree—that the inspectorate did not identify the international challenge that Scotland was facing with its performance in education. It did not report on that.

I have two quick points. First, we should recognise that the SQA leadership has changed. I have had the same issue when it comes to meeting people from the SQA but, to be fair, I think that that is because they want to meet in person.

Secondly, I hope that your amendments will be rolled into the wider discussions that, last week, we agreed to have, because the issue of regulation is along similar lines to that of accreditation. The proposed curriculum Scotland is another part of that discussion. Are you considering rolling your amendments into those discussions?

If Clare has had her camera on the whole time, there must have been some technical problem. I suggest that, if she disappears again during a vote, we should just pause and check.

Just to seek clarity, is it the Government’s position that we should name qualifications based on the SCQF?

The plethora of amendments in this group indicates that there is a problem. The fact that the cabinet secretary, quite late on, has lodged an amendment that proposes a two-year review period indicates that the Government also now accepts that there is a problem, which is a step in the right direction. As the convener has set out, this group of amendments involves quite a complicated set of considerations for us, but I hope that the debate manages to elicit some clarity about the preferred option to be agreed either at this stage or at stage 3.

The issue first arose primarily during the pandemic, when we had difficulties with the SQA. More recently, the higher history debacle crystallised the problem, and in fact the chief examiner herself identified the issue. She said quite clearly—I am paraphrasing—that it was her job to do the checking of the higher history process in the examinations. That was supremely logical, but I think that it was unsatisfactory that, effectively, the SQA was marking its own homework internally, with some external oversight. We need to try to move away from such an event being able to happen again.

We have moved through a set of reforms to separate the inspectorate from Education Scotland because we do not want Government agencies or public agencies marking their own homework. That applies equally in this circumstance, where we cannot have the new qualifications body marking its own homework, as happened with the higher history arrangements.

We have a number of different options before us, and I am grateful to other members who have proposed various alternatives. Those include housing the accreditation regulation function in the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework Partnership or the inspectorate; removing the regulation function altogether; having a separate regulator, as the convener is proposing; having regulation through Education Scotland or a new body called curriculum Scotland, as Pam Duncan-Glancy is proposing; or, as the cabinet secretary proposes, having a review after two years.

I am open to all those suggestions, and the debate should elicit some clarity on all that. However, we need some change—we cannot simply carry on as we are. This is our opportunity—a set of reforms such as those in the bill is not something that will come along very often, which is why I will not support the cabinet secretary’s proposal for a review after two years. Although I can understand it, I just wish that the Government had proposed it two years ago. If it had, we might now have been in a position where we would have been able to legislate for something different.

For me, the three tests, or aims, for the new qualifications body are: ensuring its independence from the Government; avoiding it marking its own homework; and keeping our costs to a minimum, with no new quango or public body. Those are three legitimate aims, and none of the proposals before us today meets all those criteria, which is the challenge that we face.

The SCQF Partnership highlighted in its briefing that there continues to be a conflict. Education Scotland is perhaps too close to Government, and a new body would mean additional costs. I am not quite sure what the criticism is with regard to the inspectorate taking on the role; perhaps the cabinet secretary can clarify that a bit more. However, there is a problem with the status quo as well, because we continue to have a conflict of interest. We cannot, therefore, carry on as we are, and we need to look for change, so I am open to the arguments that will be set out today.

We may be looking not just at moving the accreditation function somewhere else, under a merger—we could look at hosting in order to cut costs. The function could be placed in one of a variety of bodies, and that body would provide the human resources and finance support arrangements. There are a number of different models, which I hope that we will be able to debate this morning.

I move amendment 115.

Yes, but why has it taken until this point for members of the party of Government to recognise that we need to look at some of these things? That should have been done a long time ago. To be fair, it was done within the Government but, clearly, the rest of the Parliament is not fully informed about all the pros and cons of all the different options. I understand what Jackie Dunbar is saying, but it is depressing that that question is being asked now and was not asked during the evidence sessions or in previous years, which would have stimulated a much wider discussion.

Depressingly, Ross Greer is right, and I think that the only option is for us all to hold back on our amendments to allow for further discussions before stage 3. I welcome Ross Greer’s threat or indication that, if that does not happen and the discussions do not go anywhere—I presume that that extends to stage 3—the votes of the Green Party will be used for change rather than to maintain the status quo. I am sure that Ross Greer will follow through on his word, so I am prepared to withdraw or not move my amendments, if the cabinet secretary and other members are prepared to do likewise, in order to have a meaningful set of discussions that deliver change. If those discussions do not deliver change, we will reintroduce the amendments at stage 3.

I suspect that the cabinet secretary has read the room and felt the dissatisfaction of almost every party represented on the committee—and in the Parliament—with the current arrangement, which is why she lodged amendment 73. However, I appreciated amendment 73, because it indicated a willingness on the cabinet secretary’s part to open her mind. Therefore, I will not press my amendments.

Amendment 115, by agreement, withdrawn.

I am depressed, although I am ever-hopeful that things might come of this. In reality, this is the only option. Does the cabinet secretary want to make a remark about Pam Duncan-Glancy’s remarks?

It is a risk, but we have no other option. Ross Greer has indicated that that is where he would like to go, and he provides the majority in this committee and in the Parliament—[Laughter.]—so that is where we need to go on this particular vote. I think that we probably need to go down this route. I am sceptical, for all the reasons that I have set out, but that is the option that we will have to consider today in order to make progress. I hope that Ross Greer and his colleagues follow through on that, if nothing comes of the discussion, because we cannot afford to continue with the status quo.