They will not be the same organisations, because they have to change. We have spent a lot of this morning talking about what that change might be, whether it be structural, in relation to governance approaches, or whether it is cultural, in relation to how people are treated and how stakeholders are engaged with.

Obviously, a financial memorandum sits alongside the bill, so committee members will interrogate that. If there is an ask from Mr Kerr for additionality, I am happy to hear it. It might be challenging to deliver it in the current climate, but we have to consider these things in the round. We have to deliver meaningful change, and that is the challenge with this bill. The new organisation cannot be a replication of what came before.

I know that there is a range of views about the bill perhaps not satisfying everyone’s expectations. That is okay—we are at stage 1, so I will listen to views on how we can improve the legislation. However, standing still is not good enough, and I cannot deliver on the aspirations of Louise Hayward’s report unless we reform the qualifications body. The chronology is really important.

The funding is attached to the financial memorandum. Mr Kerr asked about engagement with stakeholders and how that might be better facilitated or supported financially. Again, I am happy to work with him on that. If he has strong views about our needing to reconsider the approach, we will look at what we can deliver, while recognising the challenging state of our public finances.

I think that there is a recognition in the SQA and in Education Scotland that things have to change, and they want to be part of the new change. It is not my role as cabinet secretary to talk for the staff, but in general, I would say that they are supportive of improvement and reform. However, they want to be part of it—they do not want it to be done to them—so it is important that we take them with us.

I am very amenable to that suggestion. We will reflect on it and provide an update to the committee, but I broadly agree that we need to be very mindful of BSL’s place as a language and how we can better reflect that in legislation.

When we go on school visits, we all see a side to schools that is presented to politicians, but I also know classroom teachers well. In schools, we need to try to build the opportunities for young people to be engaged. It is a bit like voter apathy. You have to try to reach those people. Scotland’s teachers do a really good job of reaching young people every day. I will pick on modern studies because it is a subject that is unique to the Scottish curriculum. It allows not only for decision making to be talked about in class but for apathy to be challenged.

Qualifications Scotland will have to work hard with Scotland’s teachers and schools to engage young people in decision making through the new approach to the charter and the learner interest committee. I suppose that your point is that we do not want to hear a host of the same voices that we routinely hear from the same stakeholders. I know that the committee has taken evidence on that. We routinely hear from the same stakeholders in Scottish education and we need to think critically about how we go wider than that. Although the voices that are heard at this committee are important, there are other voices out there. How do we pull out those who are perhaps, as Mr Mason has pointed out, apathetic?

They are referenced in the policy memorandum, but they will also be part of the learner interest committee and the charter. We will also look at developing guidance on how we can support further clarification on that point.

I heard the challenge in relation to the point regarding parents and carers. I should also say that, more broadly, as committee members might be aware—I think that Ms Duncan-Glancy asked me a topical question on this not that long ago—we have changed the way in which we fund parental organisations in Scotland. We are now providing additional funding to Connect to develop a national assembly. That approach to having a parent voice at the national level will be very important to challenging the Government on a range of issues, not least qualifications.

In the policy memorandum.

We can consider that. Again, we must be mindful that too much stipulation in primary legislation can be challenging. It can limit and dilute the pool of people who are available to fulfil some of these opportunities. I am happy to hear views from committee members to that end. If the committee is minded to ensure that that is specified, we can look at that, although there might be some unintended consequences of doing so.

Mr Mason’s point is about whether that representative might be there to speak on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union, for example. I will work with committee members on that if the committee has a strong feeling about it. At the moment, it is fair to say that we are taking an open approach.

We see that as being largely for an administrative purpose, because it is important that the body is in the room at the same time that the groups meet. It is also important that, if the groups raise a challenge with qualifications Scotland, the body is there to respond to that challenge. Therefore, a qualifications Scotland staff member will be present for two reasons. It will have a representative in the room because it is its organisation, too, so it is important that it hears the challenge. It is there to respond. One of the key challenges that the SQA faces is that, arguably, it has not been responsive in the past, so let us try to manage that through the governance structures. The qualifications Scotland representative will not be there to be a voice for learners or teachers—that is not the approach that we would take to their presence in the room. It will have a representative present to respond to any challenge; largely, that will have an administrative purpose, because it is its body, too.

That is quite a contentious issue, in itself. As you have set out, Mr Rennie, the system is voluntary, except when it comes to Scottish vocational qualifications, which need to be accredited.

There will be a range of views on whether accreditation should be mandated. I am not going to give Mr Rennie a direct answer on that today; I will consider it. After all, taking such a decision would not be without consequences. I suspect that the main consequence would be to do with resource—which I do not have.

As a result, we need to be pragmatic about the realities of where we are. Would I, in an ideal world, look to mandate accreditation of all qualifications? I am not sure that I would, because it might have unintended consequences for a range of qualifications.

Fiona Robertson knows qualifications better than I do. She delivers a suite of different qualifications in a range of educational settings. It has probably grown quite naturally that accreditation is not mandated for every qualification that is offered. However, that is something that we will continue to consider. Moreover, I do not want to divorce the challenge from Mr Dey’s wider work on reform of post-school education, which is why the work of the short-life working group is really important.

I think that such an approach would affect qualifications in different ways, given that so many of the qualifications that are delivered by the SQA are not delivered in schools. Our focus today might mean that we are looking at this through a school-unit lens, so perhaps we should ask secondary headteachers to look at the issue in the future. I am not against doing so. My question, though, is always going to be this: how would that improve things for learners? How would it improve outcomes for our children and young people?