Chamber and committees

I am listening carefully to what Mr Kerr is saying. Does he accept that accreditation does not apply, at the current time, to all qualifications and that the point that I made earlier on scope is therefore relevant?

He has consistently referenced Professor Muir’s report, and it is worth while putting on the record that Professor Muir did not consider the scope of accreditation. The scale of that scope and, more broadly, how that would interact with the wider sector were not looked at in the review.

I hear Mr Kerr’s challenge, but I am not sure that the answer that he proposes gives us the long-term solution. Budget is relevant, but the other relevant part is the scope in relation to accreditation and whether we apply that across the board to all qualifications, which would inherently generate significant additional costs.

Will the member take an intervention?

The other issue relates to protected characteristics. We need to be mindful that there are a number of different protected characteristics. I am more than happy to engage with Ms Duncan-Glancy on the definition and how we can clarify that, but we have issues about supporting the current wording without having that clarity. From my perspective, I also need to be mindful of legislative competence. However, I am more than happy to engage with her on that point. I have spoken to the issues with the terminology.

Mr Greer has lodged two alternative packages of amendments to ensure that the membership of the learner interest committee includes children and young people. I encourage members to support amendments 119 and 120.

Amendment 119 provides that the learner interest committee must be entirely comprised of those who are undertaking or have recent experience of undertaking qualifications. It will prevent qualifications Scotland staff from being members of the committee. It also provides that one member of the board of qualifications Scotland may be appointed if they represent learner interests on the board; they must act as a co-convener of the committee and they will not be entitled to vote.

Amendment 120 specifies that “children and young people” will be defined as

“persons under the age of 18”.

I ask Mr Greer and Mr Whitfield, who has lodged a similar alternative amendment, not to move amendments 1 and 226, which are concerned with ensuring the inclusion of a majority of persons undertaking, or with recent experience of undertaking, qualifications and the inclusion of children and young people. I believe that the purpose of those amendments is satisfied by amendments 119 and 120, which go much further in providing that the committee consists entirely of those undertaking, or with recent experience of undertaking, qualifications and that it includes children and young people.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 227 would require parents to be members of the learner interest committee. I agree that parents have a role to play in their children’s attainment of qualifications, and, for that reason, I have lodged an amendment that ensures that parents will be consulted on the creation of the learner charter. However, I do not believe that it is appropriate for parents to be represented on a committee that is designated for those who are undertaking qualifications, so I do not support amendment 227.

I also urge caution with regard to the language that we use when referring to parents. It is important that we are as inclusive as possible and that we acknowledge that many young people are care experienced and are represented by carers or other parties. Any use of the word “parent” in legislation should be accompanied by the word “carer”.

On the membership of the teacher and practitioner interest committee, Mr Greer has again lodged what I see as a cohesive package that strengthens the committee’s membership structure and mirrors the provisions in amendment 119 for the learner interest committee. I ask members to support amendment 121, for the same reasons why I believe that amendment 119 should be supported. It ensures that the voting membership of the teacher and practitioner interest committee is made up entirely of those who have current or recent experience of delivering teaching or training for qualifications. The committee will be supported by a non-voting board member to ensure that there is an effective relationship between the board and the committee more broadly.

Mr Greer’s amendment 51 prescribes that a teacher who is in training be on the committee. That is a valuable addition in principle, but the provision could create administrative issues with regard to maintaining membership, given that the duration of training, such as for the postgraduate diploma, could be as short as 10 months. If Mr Greer still wishes to pursue the matter, I am keen to work with him ahead of stage 3 to achieve the effect that he is looking for.

In amendment 228, Ms Duncan-Glancy also seeks to set out membership in a much more prescriptive way. Although I agree that the stakeholders named in the amendment have roles to play in advising qualifications Scotland, their position on the committee as stakeholder organisations could undermine the principle that the committee is about bringing the teacher and practitioner experience to the fore. Therefore, I do not think that it is appropriate for organisational and strategic stakeholders such as the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, Colleges Scotland, Universities Scotland, the SFC and SDS to have seats on the teacher and practitioner interest committee. Although I am unable to support the amendment, I assure members that I fully expect the stakeholders that are listed in the amendment to have seats on the strategic advisory council. I will speak to that in more detail when we come to group 13. I fully intend to work with members on how we can get the membership model for the council right.

Mr Greer has lodged several amendments that support more effective reporting lines and consultation opportunities for the interest committees. Those amendments very much reflect how I envisaged the committees working, so I encourage members to support amendments 32, 33, 50 and 52.

I have lodged amendment 49 to set out a new provision that is designed to support the staff of qualifications Scotland. The amendment works in connection with the amendments in group 3 that require the member of the board who was appointed to provide knowledge of staff interests to ensure effective consultation with the staff of that organisation. Public bodies have the ability to establish staff governance-focused committees to advise the board. Those committees are an effective way to engage with staff, trade unions and the wider organisation on the issues that most affect staff. Although I do not wish to prescribe that such a committee be set up, because that would, rightly, be for the organisation and staff to decide, in the event that such a committee were set up, it feels essential that it would be convened by the member who was appointed to the board to reflect staff interests. My amendment 49 would require that, so I ask members to support it.

The member has raised a number of issues. On the point that she made at the start of her contribution, the bill does not go back to the current First Minister’s time as education secretary. The issues that the member has talked about in relation to the pandemic and, of course, the report from Professor Muir were the catalysts for change in the education system, which have led, ultimately, to the bill that we are discussing today.

The proposed moving of the accreditation function to Education Scotland would have a resourcing implication. I have set out some of the costs that we think would be associated with that, but I have not yet heard the member reflect on the scope of what her proposal with regard to accreditation would include. It would be helpful to hear about that. In its letter to the committee, the SCQF Partnership is clear about the need for an evidence-based approach. Not all qualifications in Scotland are accredited at the current time. If we were to consider accrediting all qualifications, including all those that are currently delivered in schools, that would necessarily increase the associated costs. Such matters have not been considered in the round, which is why the Government’s amendment 73 seeks to give us the time to do that. I hope that the member will reflect on that.

More broadly, if I were to accept amendment 291—I do not think that accreditation should sit with Education Scotland, because the nature of accreditation is not really in the spirit of what Education Scotland, as an executive agency of ministers, delivers at the moment; that would bring accreditation much closer to Government—the process of education reform would be delayed, because we have not undertaken the associated scoping that would sit with that work. Therefore, the member’s proposal would delay the bill’s delivering on what stakeholders expect us to deliver on.

As cabinet secretary, I am constantly being asked to move forward on the bill at pace, and I hope that the member will recognise that such a move at this point in the day, at stage 2 of the bill’s consideration, would delay education reform. However, I accept the strength of feeling on accreditation. In that regard, with amendment 73, the Government has moved on a previous decision that was taken before my time. I have also said to Mr Greer that I am happy to work on a cross-party basis in advance of stage 3 to make sure that we get this right and to compel the Government to look again at accreditation.

I hope that the member recognises the challenge that would be involved in the Government moving, at stage 2, on an issue on which I do not think we have conducted the necessary scoping or assessed the resource implications.

Mr Greer’s amendment 2 calls for the addition to the bill of a founding principle for qualifications Scotland. This founding principle is stated as supporting and providing for those who are undertaking a qualification and those who are delivering a qualification in Scotland. I have a number of concerns about how that is defined, and about the concept of a founding principle more generally.

If we were to have a founding principle, it would be imperative that we grasp the full scope of services and activities to be undertaken by the qualifications body. That encompasses many services and responsibilities, which I do not believe have been captured in the text of the amendment. For example, the principle would not apply to the provision of services that are delivered outwith Scotland, or to the full range of qualifications and assessment services that qualifications Scotland will provide. However, I want to make it clear that I agree that it is important that qualifications Scotland prioritises services that are delivered in Scotland.

As drafted, amendment 2 is not clear on what is meant by the terms “support” or “provide for”. That could create a new role for qualifications Scotland that it is not designed to fulfil, such as the provision of pastoral or counselling services, which would not sit easily—nor should it—with the core functions of a national qualifications body.

As much as I agree with Mr. Greer’s focus on children, young people and adult learners, as well as on teachers and practitioners, his founding principle does not mention the many other important stakeholders that qualifications Scotland works with and supports, not least in higher education, business and industry, as well as other third-party stakeholders and public organisations.

I also have a more general concern, which is that the insertion of any kind of founding principle could lead to unintended consequences. It is never possible to know in advance how such a provision could be held to affect other provisions in the bill, which seem, on the face of it, to be absolute in their terms. I would not want to risk introducing such a lack of predictability or transparency.

For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 2. However, I note that Mr. Greer’s amendment 3, in group 7, proposes something slightly more straightforward around the body’s functions. While there would be areas to address in that respect, I hope that it might be possible for us to work with him to do something in that space, rather than his pressing amendment 2 to a vote today.

I am happy to do so.

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.