Chamber and committees

I am asking members to support a number of amendments in this group that would ensure that the board of qualifications Scotland was teacher led. That goes to the heart of Ms Duncan-Glancy’s point about re-establishing trust with the profession, which is a key part of education reform. I have also asked members to support a board model that achieves that re-establishment of trust while ensuring a balanced mixture of the skills required, as outlined in amendments 41 to 44.

On the point about bringing in a wider range of skills and experience, I would be happy, as I said to Ms Duncan-Glancy in my opening comments, to work with her on amendments 218 and 220 to ensure that the board is able to react effectively to changing needs for expertise.

Mr Greer made a point about trade union representation in connection, I think, with amendment 216, and he asked about a potential conflict of interest in having members of teaching trade unions on the board. The fundamental issue is that we would be changing the board structure to make it a representative board. As he knows, there are a number of different teaching trade unions, and there would be calls from all those unions to have a seat at the table, which would, again, extend and expand number of people on the board. It also raises the question why that would stop at teaching trade unions and why the board could not include the broader educational workforce. A range of teaching trade unions, and other unions, would have an interest in having a seat at the table, and I think that that would fundamentally change the board structure that we have devised.

As for learner voice, I am happy to work with members to ensure that the experience of people taking qualifications is reflected on the board. That is why I have asked Mr Greer not to move amendment 28. I heard his commentary and that of Ms Duncan-Glancy on amendment 214 and ask them to work with me ahead of stage 3 to deliver on that shared approach.

I thank Mr Greer for outlining his approach with regard to amendment 29. I very much recognise that groups such as parents might be categorised as representing learners’ interests and, on that basis, I am happy to support that amendment.

I acknowledge the rationale behind prescribing further stipulations for board membership, such as those in amendment 217, which seeks to place trade union representatives on the board. However, given the concerns about public appointments and the possible conflict of interest that I have previously raised, I encourage members to support amendment 53 instead, as it would provide for a designated member who would be required to undertake greater consultation with staff and their trade unions to ensure that their views were reflected.

I am unable to support the amendments that aim to prescribe membership and reiterate my request to Ms Duncan-Glancy and Mr Greer not to move amendments 211, 204, 216, 217, 27, 28, 30 and 31, for the reasons that I have previously set out.

I note the manuscript amendment that was lodged yesterday by Ms Duncan-Glancy, which sought to amend my amendment 53 to require staff interest board members to consult the relevant groups, as opposed to consulting when it was considered appropriate to do so. I very much understand the member’s thinking here, but I am a bit concerned that such a change would require, under the provisions in amendment 53, consultation on everything—which would be quite wide ranging—rather than just on aspects of direct interest and relevance to staff. I would want to take more time to consider the implications of that amendment if it were to be brought back at stage 3, and I am more than happy to engage with the member on her proposals to that end.

I thank Mr Rennie for explaining the thinking behind his amendments. Without wanting to pre-empt anything that Ms Duncan-Glancy or Mr Kerr might say, I recognise the strength of feeling from committee members regarding the location of the accreditation function. Indeed, we discussed the matter substantively during stage 1, and it is a key recommendation from the committee’s stage 1 report.

The decision regarding the location of the accreditation function pre-dates my time as cabinet secretary. However, as members know, the Scottish Government undertook a full exploration at that time, using criteria that included—as Mr Rennie referred to—value for money; independence from ministers; continuity of service; effectiveness of existing services; and the level of disruption to staff. That work included extensive engagement with key accreditation stakeholders—for example, other public and charitable bodies such as Education Scotland, the Scottish Funding Council, Skills Development Scotland, the SCQF Partnership and the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education in Scotland; 25 awarding bodies that deliver qualifications in Scotland; staff at SQA accreditation; the SQA accreditation committee; and staff of regulation organisations in England and Wales, such as Ofqual and Qualifications Wales.

The Government looked closely at a number of alternative locations, including the new inspectorate, Education Scotland, the SCQF Partnership and, among others, SDS and the Scottish Funding Council, in addition to the possibility of establishing a stand-alone non-departmental public body.

Following that analysis, locating the accreditation function within qualifications Scotland was identified at that time as the strongest option.

Amendment 167 from Mr Rennie seeks to locate the accreditation function within the new office of the chief inspector. That amendment risks simply moving to another body the issue that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and Professor Muir identified. The committee also heard evidence that reflected that position from an education inspector who attended the committee on behalf of the First Division Association and from staff at the inspectorate and Education Scotland.

The framework for, and operation of, accreditation is different from the inspection of education establishments. Therefore, different governance, accountability and operational arrangements, including the staff and skills to deliver the functions, would be needed for each function, and there would be different relationships with the Scottish ministers.

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.

The structure that the member talks about is replicated on a number of boards. In the instance in my example, there are challenges in how the staff voice and teacher voice might be incorporated within the current board composition. I have set out my amendments and proposals in relation to consultation that go some way towards addressing that issue.

More broadly, I encourage members to support amendment 53, which seeks to strengthen staff voice arrangements within the organisation. The issue that I have in this instance goes back to the point that I made previously about the composition of the board and some of the issues that were experienced in 2000 with a representative board model that was arguably not as focused on governance as it should have been at that time. Amendment 53 would ensure much closer working between the board, staff and unions, which I believe goes some way towards addressing Ms Duncan-Glancy’s points. It requires the member appointed with knowledge of staff interest to consult and engage with staff and trade unions, and I have lodged another amendment in group 6 that further enhances the relationship.

Ms Duncan-Glancy has lodged two more amendments on board composition, both of which I am interested in supporting in some form. The first, amendment 218, seeks to ensure that knowledge of business, industry and skills is reflected in the statutory criteria of the board. That is an essential element of qualifications Scotland’s functions and services, and I fully expect that to be reflected in the board in some form. I am, however, mindful of how requiring a public body to have specific business and industry knowledge on the board could be viewed. I would be interested in refining that position to focus on an individual who brings experience that is more related to the skills and training sector. I recognise the value that business and industry knowledge can bring to the body, and I would be happy to work with the member on that issue ahead of stage 3.

The second amendment, amendment 220, enables qualifications Scotland to co-opt additional members if required. I am supportive of that in principle. However, for it to work, I believe that some tweaks and additional provisions will need to be added to ensure that co-opted members could be appointed in a way that did not undermine the ministerial public appointments process or the necessary limits on board numbers. I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to press amendment 220, so that we can work on a solution ahead of stage 3.

I will comment on amendments 30 and 31, which, together, add a limitation of eight consecutive years as the maximum board appointment period. Eight years is the maximum for public appointments set out in the Ethical Standards Commissioner’s code for public appointments. That means that appointments to qualifications Scotland, regulated by the commissioner, will automatically align with that limit. To that end, although I am supportive of the general principle of Ross Greer’s amendments, I cannot support them, given the arrangements that are already present in the commissioner’s code. Relying on the code instead would ensure that the body always keeps pace with best practice, rather than setting something in statute now that may not be appropriate in the future.

I move amendment 41.

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.

I thank Mr Greer and Mr Kerr for explaining the purposes of their amendments. As we have heard, amendments 47 and 48 are about the creation of a new statutory position of chief examiner, which would be separate from the role of chief executive. That person would require to be registered with the General Teaching Council for Scotland. I remind members that I am a member of the GTCS.

I highlight to the committee, as Ross Greer did, that the SQA has already implemented a new executive management structure, which includes the newly defined roles of chief executive and chief examiner as separate functions. Only yesterday, along with the director of education reform, Clare Hicks, I spoke to the chair of the SQA. She talked to us at length about how warmly that position change by the SQA has been welcomed. It is our expectation that that shift to the separation of those leadership positions will transfer to qualifications Scotland.

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 have heard a range of different options and amendments proposed and debated today, but there is no agreed, cross-party view coming from the committee that I can look at and respond to. The Government’s amendment moves us somewhat in relation to decisions that were taken previously, as I alluded to in my response to Mr Kerr. However, I will take Mr Briggs and Mr Greer at their word and say that I would be happy not to move the Government’s amendment in order to see whether we can reach that cross-party consensus on accreditation in advance of stage 3. However, that is contingent on other members doing likewise.

The function would not move from Education Scotland but from the SQA. However, as I think the committee heard in evidence from the previous chief inspector, there is a broader issue, in that the scope of accreditation does not apply to all qualifications at present. Government amendment 73 seeks to consider whether accreditation needs to apply across the board. There are arguments in favour of and against that. The submission from the SCQF Partnership that I think the committee received this week talks about some of the challenges in taking an evidence-based approach. More broadly, there is a requirement for us to look at the budget associated with the matter, which we expect would increase. We expect that any movement of the function from the SQA would be associated with increased start-up costs, which I will talk about in more detail.

If we left the accreditation function within qualifications Scotland, it would benefit from the transitioning shared services arrangements that I think that Mr Rennie also spoke about. It is an unaffordable option at this time, when the education budget is already stretched, as members are aware. Therefore, I ask Mr Rennie not to move his amendment 167 and related amendments. For the same reason, I ask Mr Kerr not to move his amendment 316, which has broadly the same effect as Mr Rennie’s proposals by conferring the accreditation functions on the chief inspector.

For similar reasons, I cannot support amendment 287 in Mr Rennie’s name, which seeks to move the accreditation function to the SCQF Partnership. Members know that moving the location of the function to the partnership was previously given full consideration. However, a number of risks were identified with that option at the time. I note that, as I mentioned in my response to Mr Kerr, the SCQF Partnership has since reaffirmed those challenges and risks in a letter that it sent to the committee last week. In that letter, the partnership highlighted the confidence that it has in the current arrangements and committed to working with qualifications Scotland to further improve the bodies’ shared confidence in each other.

Another crucial factor was the identity of, and distinction between, the SCQF Partnership’s rating function and the SQA accreditation function. Unlike the SQA function, the rating function covers all types of qualifications, including degrees and diplomas. It recognises and measures learning differently, using a system in which credit bodies allocate credit points depending on how long it takes to achieve that learning.

Another important consideration is the organisational status of the SCQF Partnership compared to the accreditation function. The partnership is an independent, registered charity, and there are clear benefits to maintaining that independence, which stakeholders recognise and support. That independence is not recognised by Mr Rennie’s amendment, which would create an ability for Scottish ministers to determine the SCQF Partnership’s functions.

That difference in status also risks the accreditation function no longer being strategically accountable to Scottish ministers as it currently is by being a non-departmental public body function. That means that it will be more challenging to ensure that accreditation meets the needs of the Scottish Government’s priorities for qualifications. For example, if the accreditation function were to move to the SCQF Partnership and an incident or issue were to arise, Scottish ministers would be limited in their ability to intervene to address it. Without that accountability to ministers, the level of accountability that the accreditation function would have to the Scottish Parliament would be significantly reduced from the current arrangements.

I turn to the issue of staffing, which I think that Mr Rennie also spoke to. The move would significantly change the employment status of current accreditation staff. They would no longer be public servants; instead, they would be employed by a charity. The risk is that that does not take account of the loss of skills and expertise that might occur if staff do not want to move, given that change in employment terms.

Other factors include disruption to services and concerns around the capacity and resource of the SCQF Partnership to meet the needs of both functions. Therefore, I ask Mr Rennie not to move amendment 287 and the related amendments.

I turn to Ms. Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 291, which seeks to locate the accreditation function within Education Scotland. Members know that Education Scotland is an executive agency of the Scottish Government. Therefore amendment 291 would bring the accreditation function under closer control of Scottish ministers, which I do not think that members would want.