Chamber and committees

The member talks about moving functions and its associated costs, and I alluded to staff costs and staff terms and conditions in my commentary. Has she given any thought to how long the process would take? I am very mindful of the need for this bill to take effect and have an impact in our schools, where it should be having an impact, as quickly as possible. This is fundamentally about driving reform forward.

Some of the challenge that I face as cabinet secretary is that, as we have heard from Mr Mason, any reconsideration of establishing a new body not only would come with associated costs but would take time. Has the member scoped the time associated with moving staff across and the duration of the delay to education reform that that might create?

I ask Mr Kerr to indulge me. He talks about experts, but I wonder whether I could draw his attention back to the evidence that the committee received from the SCQF Partnership, which advised that it would encourage any future deliberations on the issue to focus on addressing only evidenced risks within the current qualifications system in Scotland, not least due to the current fiscal operating environment. The SCQF Partnership is also an expert in this.

I am not denying that we need to look at accreditation, and the location of accreditation, in the future; indeed, the Government amendment commits and compels Government to do so. However, there is no simple answer, as I think that Mr Mason was alluding to. The solution that Mr Kerr puts forward is laden with risk and additional costs. Does he recognise that?

Does he also recognise the evidence that the committee received from the expert body, the SCQF Partnership, which talked about addressing this through an evidence-based approach within the current qualifications system?

I thank Ms Duncan-Glancy for explaining the purpose of her amendments. I note that the establishment of two committees that will be dedicated to the interests of children, young people and adult learners and to those of teachers and practitioners has been broadly welcomed. However, as I recognised in the Government’s response to the committee’s stage 1 report, we have an opportunity to further strengthen their intended impact. Members have lodged several amendments regarding the membership of those committees.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 225 sets out a very important principle: the diverse needs and interests of Scotland’s people should be represented in qualifications Scotland’s committees and sub-committees. The amendment aims to ensure that people from marginalised communities and socially disadvantaged backgrounds are considered, and I fully agree with her proposal. The amendment reflects the objectives for interest committees as set out in the bill’s policy memorandum.

However, there are some challenges with amendment 225 as it is currently drafted. I question whether the terminology is precise enough for what I believe Ms Duncan-Glancy is trying to achieve. In order for the amendment to work in the way that she intends, it would have to be drafted differently. We would also need to be sure that the term “socio-economically disadvantaged” would work in the context of the bill and to consider whether we need to adjust the amendment to include an appropriate definition to sit alongside it. I ask her not to press amendment 225, with a view to working with me on the issue ahead of stage 3.

I have discussed the wording with officials. On the point about the term “socio-economically disadvantaged”, a range of terms are used in historical legislation, and we want to be absolutely sure about the definition. That is the challenge in relation to how the amendment is drafted. However, I am more than happy to work with Ms Duncan-Glancy on that to ensure that we capture the correct definition, because I support what she is trying to do, which is to ensure that we have a much more representative board. I hope that that allays her concerns in that regard.

As I understand it, no. However, we will learn from the pilot, so I am not discounting it. A pilot is something that we have to learn from at national level. In rolling it out with the individual local authorities that I named and with Robert Gordon University, we will seek to learn from the process, and we will engage the Information Commissioner’s Office on the best way to do that at national level. That does not preclude your suggestions in relation to the unique learner number, which I know has been discussed at length at the committee previously.

It is partly under way, but it has not yet been completed.

The pilot that has been identified in the north-east does not use that approach, but—

The Parliament also backed a budget to deliver on provision of the Scottish child payment, and that is what I am here to do today. You cannot pick and choose. We remain committed to the roll-out of universal free school meals.

The analysis that the SFT provided was from 18 months ago, and I have met the SFT and engaged further with it since that time. I am not aware that the SFT has given us a further update, because we will not be able to deliver universality during this session of Parliament. However, through the budget negotiations, we have been able to identify the additional funding required to deliver for P6 and P7 pupils receiving the SCP and to deliver on the asks by other parties regarding the roll-out of free school meals for S1 to S3 pupils. That is really important.

Part of the challenge here is that the north-east pilot is a locally owned project, which is why the data sharing at local level, as I understand it—having discussed it with Universities Scotland—is being carried out between Aberdeen City Council, Aberdeenshire Council and Robert Gordon University. They are all currently finalising data-sharing arrangements. I would expect that, through the finalisation of those data-sharing arrangements, there will be engagement with the Information Commissioner and his office.