Chamber and committees

Mr Greer raises an important point on the timetabling of qualifications and the hours associated with those qualifications. I raised the same point with the SQA some years ago, when I was sitting on that side of the table along with Mr Greer and Ms Smith. Mr Greer is absolutely right to raise points about the SQA and Education Scotland not having good working relationships in delivering those qualifications. However, part of the challenge is how we have teachers embedded in those organisations.

During discussions on the first group of amendments, I spoke about some of the work that I have introduced in relation to the schools unit in Education Scotland. We have a headteacher in there who has been seconded out of school and who will be in charge of leading that qualifications work. It is hugely important to have qualified teachers on the ground informing what we are doing in all aspects of qualifications reform. That is also why we have headteachers working to lead the curriculum improvement cycle, which is also relevant here.

I hear the arguments being put. I also know that the background to the bill is the lack of trust in the qualifications body among the teaching profession and parents, carers and young people who have come through the system. It is about rebuilding trust. Some of the changes that we have introduced in relation to the schools unit and to working differently with our teachers on curriculum improvement address some of that.

Putting that wording into the legislation is perhaps overly prescriptive. I am not necessarily sure that it is required at this time, although I am listening to the arguments.

I have said that I am happy to have that discussion with Ms Duncan-Glancy ahead of stage 3, although it is fair to say that the way in which the amendments are drafted, particularly in relation to Education Scotland, is going to be problematic, because it does not have its own legal personality separate from that of the Scottish ministers. We need to be careful, because Education Scotland is not established in statute. The way that the amendment is drafted would not have the effect that Ms Duncan-Glancy desires, although I am supportive of the requirement in principle.

Amendment 233 would require qualifications Scotland to work with others, as opposed to the bill’s current reference to

“the desirability of working ... with others”.

The amendment goes further than is necessary and weakens qualifications Scotland’s ability to make judgments about who it should work with. I think that the existing wording of the bill would still achieve what Ms Duncan-Glancy wants. I understand the point behind amendment 233, although I do not support the amendment itself. There are amendments in groups 8 and 10 that I do support and that will go some way towards assuring the member that qualifications Scotland will work effectively with others in the system—for example, the amendments that would require qualifications Scotland to have regard to other public bodies throughout the Scottish education and skills system, such as Education Scotland, Skills Development Scotland, the Scottish Funding Council and the SCQF Partnership. I hope that I have given Ms Duncan-Glancy a level of reassurance and that I have persuaded her to reconsider moving amendment 233.

I thank Ms Duncan-Glancy for her amendments on qualifications Scotland’s responsibilities to work with others, and I agree that it is an important matter for us to consider. Amendment 232 specifies that qualifications Scotland must work in collaboration with Education Scotland. That fully aligns with my intention for increased consultation and I support the intention behind the amendment. However, Education Scotland is an executive agency of the Scottish ministers and statutory functions should not be conferred on such agencies, because they do not have their own legal personality separate from that of the Scottish ministers. In legal terms, there is, strictly speaking, no basis on which the duty would operate.

Similarly, I note that amendment 243 seeks a reciprocal arrangement for Education Scotland to work with qualifications Scotland, although the requirements are slightly uneven because a more qualified duty would be imposed on Education Scotland. For the same reasons, I support the principle behind amendment 243, but it will need to be reworked. I will be happy to work with Ms Duncan-Glancy to adjust those amendments for stage 3 and I ask that she does not press or move those amendments.

The regulations have not yet been brought forward, and I am keen to work with members to ensure agreement on what they specify.

On the other part of the question, we have talked about the parliamentary scrutiny of qualifications Scotland, and we will, additionally, talk about that in greater detail in later groups.

I am listening to Mr Kerr develop his point. He talks about greater clarity, but the SCQF provides that clarity at a national level, encompassing all qualifications. He is seeking to duplicate—I think that that is the point that Mr Adam was making—by having another framework embedded, as I understand it, within qualifications Scotland, and that would create more confusion. Does Mr Kerr agree that more challenge in how qualifications are interpreted will be created by duplicating something that already exists?

Will the member take an intervention?

I am happy to have taken that intervention from Ms Duncan-Glancy. I have already alluded to the extensive engagement that was undertaken prior to my time in office, which considered a range of different bodies. There is no unilateral view on where the accreditation function should sit and, additionally, no one view, I think, stemmed from the stage 1 report. However, there is a strength of feeling from committee members on the issue, and I accept that, which is where the Government amendment takes us.

More broadly, creating a new NDPB to accommodate the accreditation function would contravene the Government’s public service reform position that no new smaller public bodies should be established. We must be mindful of costs to the taxpayer in that regard.

I would also argue that a decision to set up curriculum Scotland as a new body via an amendment without having done detailed analysis and consultation would be highly questionable, particularly given the significant policy, legal, financial and delivery risks. I will talk more about that when we come to group 20.

Finally, similar to some of the other options, amendment 295 risks the creation of further complexity in the national educational infrastructure, potential disruption to services due to the significant change involved, and potential changes in staff terms and conditions. I therefore ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move the amendment.

In summary, I cannot support the non-Government amendments in this group, as they are all a consequence of removing the accreditation function from qualifications Scotland. I ask that members take into account the full range of measures that the Government is taking to ensure an appropriate separation between qualifications Scotland’s accreditation and awarding functions. The measures proposed in the bill are significant and will, in my view, provide the necessary separation. In addition to the legislation, I have commissioned the chair of the SQA to advise on additional measures at an operational level to further strengthen that separation and to provide reassurance to the public and MSPs about the integrity of accreditation.

Nevertheless, I accept that this is a complex issue, and it is important that we get it right. That is why I have lodged amendment 73, which will ensure that the issue is revisited through a statutory review of the operation of the bill’s accreditation provisions. As currently drafted, that review would include the location and scope of the accreditation function—which was the point that I made in response to Mr Kerr—and it would draw on two years of operation of the provisions. Not only would that ensure a smooth transition to the new body and continuity of service provision, but it would enable us to consider the wider implications for the education and skills sectors. A report of the review would be laid before Parliament so that the committee could consider it.

I understand that members might have concerns about the two-year period being too long—indeed, I think that we have heard that already this morning—and I would be happy to work with members to reduce it. I hope that that answers some of Mr Greer’s points. This is a complex issue that covers many interests, and I am committed to ensuring that we get it right.

The Government’s amendment will enable us to have the detailed consideration that is required in relation to the location of the accreditation function, so that we can ensure that any changes reflect the interests of all those who use and rely on that function, which, as members know, go beyond the immediate education sector.

Therefore, I ask members to support my amendment 73 in preference to the other amendments in the group.

We have asked her to strengthen the accreditation function, and there are a number of different actions associated with that. I will come back to you on that point, as I am aware that officials are not allowed to talk in this current engagement.

On amendment 47, I am, of course, supportive of the principle that the chief examiner should have teaching experience. However, as members will appreciate, not all previous teachers necessarily remain registered with the GTCS, and not all of our teachers trained in Scotland. If someone has spent many years building essential qualifications and assessment experience elsewhere, they might not be a member of the GTCS—something that, of course, also incurs an annual fee. I believe that, if we were to require GTCS registration, we would risk missing out on the invaluable experience of candidates who might come from outwith Scotland, as we would be presuming that a candidate would have been a teacher in Scotland, which I think would be quite limiting.

I also wish to note that specifying a staffing role like that in legislation has other challenges. A chief executive is a well-established role, and it is clear to all that their role is to lead the organisation, whereas the role of a chief examiner, prescribed in legislation, is likely to be more ambiguous to people. We would need to be much clearer in the legislation about the function of that role but, at this point, based on the current role, I do not think that prescribing it in legislation would be helpful to the organisation, as that role might need to adapt and change to fit the future organisational and system needs.

As I said, if we were to legislate on this, we should be much more flexible about who can be appointed to ensure that we do not exclude good candidates who might have taught outwith Scotland.

Can I come back to you on that point? I want to check with officials in relation to an associated reporting period.

I am hearing discussion about the vision for Scottish education. The national improvement framework was published in December of last year, and I draw members’ attention to that document. It was informed by the national discussion, so I do not accept the suggestion that the national discussion has not gone anywhere. It has informed the national improvement framework, which sets out the vision for Scottish education. If members want to apprise themselves of the detail of that document, they are welcome to do so. They might not agree with it, but it was informed by the national discussion, by the other documents and reports that Mr Greer alluded to and by extensive stakeholder engagement.