Chamber and committees

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.

Mr Rennie, I am concerned that, if I open my mouth, you might interpret my body language in a manner that I do not mean. [Laughter.]

I have heard contributions from Mr Rennie and Mr Kerr about my unwillingness to move on this matter. I would observe that, if that were the case, there was no requirement on me to lodge amendment 73 to compel the Government to look at this. I heard the strength of the committee’s feelings on the matter at stage 1 and I responded to that by lodging amendment 73 at stage 2. We were not sighted on the amendments that were being brought forward by the Opposition at the time, because of the timetable for the drafting of amendments, but I am happy to give a commitment to members today. We have to get this right. The issue that I have, which is predicated on the advice that I have been given, is that all the options that have been extensively considered carry inherent risk.

I also hear Mr Rennie’s points about the need for perfection. That is something that I would aspire to in relation to the new body, but Mr Mason’s points in that regard are relevant. I am happy to give an undertaking to have that extensive undertaking on a cross-party basis. However, I go back to my broader observation that the committee did not unanimously reach a decision on where the responsibility for accreditation should rest.

With that, and with the consensus that we want to work on a solution that works for the new organisation, I am happy to withdraw the Government’s amendment.

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 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.

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.

We are all in agreement that it is paramount that the board of qualifications Scotland is set up to lead the organisation in order to better support teachers and practitioners and to support those taking qualifications. We must also be alive to what the role of the board of an NDPB involves and ensure that it has the appropriate balance of skills to enable it to deliver on its corporate governance requirements.

Board size is an important element to get right. If a board is too small, we limit the skills and experience, and if it is too big, we create a board in which efficient decision making and corporate responsibilities are at risk. Bearing in mind those two requirements, I have reviewed the bill specifications on the range of skills required and members’ amendments in that respect and have lodged amendments 41 and 42 to increase both the minimum and maximum number of other board members—that is, membership that is not the chairing member, the accreditation convener and the chief executive. The amendments propose an increase of one, to seven and 11, respectively, increasing the total board size from a minimum of 9 to a minimum of 10 and from a maximum of 13 to a maximum of 14.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 211 and 212 seek to increase the minimum board size to 13 and the maximum to 15. I have reflected on that proposal, and I am content that it would be sensible for the sake of flexibility to set the maximum at 15, as Ms Duncan-Glancy has proposed, instead of 14, as I had initially proposed. Given that the amendments are direct alternatives, I ask members to support my amendment 42, as it will support the direction of travel to a higher maximum, but I also ask members to support amendment 212 to ensure that the maximum is ultimately set at 15—that is, 12 members in addition to the three named positions.

I have some concerns about Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 211, which seeks to increase the minimum ordinary membership to 10. The amendment would create a minimum membership of 13 in total, when we take the appointments of a chairing member, accreditation convener and chief executive alongside it, as opposed to a minimum of 10 total members, which would be achieved through my amendment 41. The main concern that I have with the amendment is that it risks creating a large minimum board, which will require careful risk management when it comes to public appointments and maintaining a legally compliant and quorate board in the event of members unexpectedly ending their appointment.

That happened quite recently—in 2023—in the SQA, which has a much lower minimum board membership. Members unexpectedly stood down, and permission was then required from the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland to rush through an appointments round to ensure that the board remained quorate. With that in mind, I urge members to support amendment 41, as opposed to amendment 211.

Amendment 213 requires consultation with the board as a whole, rather than just the chair, if the power is used to change the size of the board in the future. Although I find it unlikely that a chairing member would not engage with their board on decisions of such scale, I am content to support the amendment.

With regard to the board’s composition, there was a good discussion at stage 1 on whether a learner—more specifically, a young person—should be appointed to the board. Currently, the provisions focus on having knowledge and experience of the views and needs of those taking qualifications rather than on specific age-related criteria. The current provisions do not exclude a young person from being appointed; indeed, it is long-standing public appointments policy that anyone over the age of 16 can be appointed to a board.

As it was the intention behind the current provision in the bill to enable a wide scope of potential candidates to be appointed, be they someone with experience of taking a qualification or someone with experience of advocating on behalf of learners, without limiting it to those criteria, I am sympathetic to Mr Greer’s amendment 28, which seeks to ensure that someone under the age of 26 who is or has recently taken a qualification is appointed to the board. The amendment recognises the importance of ensuring a wide scope of potential applicants by not confining it to too young an age.

However, as this is a type of amendment that would, albeit in a positive way, seek to discriminate on the basis of age, we would have to be satisfied that it would be compatible with equality law, if it did proceed. I see the value in having a young person with experience of taking qualifications on the board, and we would be happy to work with Mr Greer to ensure that efforts were made to promote and encourage applications from those under 26. I therefore ask Mr Greer not to press the amendment and to work with me and other stakeholders to consider how we can best do that effectively.

More broadly, I recognise that more should be done to strengthen the relationship between the board member appointed to reflect the interests of learners and the wider education system. That is why, if Mr Greer were interested, I would be keen to work up a stage 3 amendment to require such an individual to consult directly with learners and those who represent them as part of their statutory board duties.

In lodging amendment 29, Mr Greer also seeks a change in respect of consultation. I will wait to hear his rationale for that, but, on the surface, it is something that I might be able to support. I will come back to it in my closing remarks.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 214 requires someone taking a qualification offered by qualifications Scotland to be appointed to the board. Again, although I see the value of such experience, I have two concerns about the amendment. The first is that the duration of qualifications varies from as little as a few weeks to as long as a number of years, and that creates challenges with maintaining board membership once those qualifications end. The second concern relates to a clear conflict of interest, as I do not think it appropriate for an individual who is taking a qualification offered by qualifications Scotland to have a non-executive leadership role in the organisation. I therefore ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move her amendment, noting my commitment to Mr Greer to work on something that, I believe, will have the same effect.

With regard to the teacher voice on the board, ensuring that qualifications Scotland is led by the experience of those who deliver learning, teaching and training for qualifications is an absolute priority. That is why the bill explicitly requires that a number of teachers, and college-based teachers, be on the board. That said, I recognise that increasing the proportion of teacher experience on the board would be desirable—although I am mindful of doing so in a way that does not limit the other range of valuable skills that are required on the board.

I note that Mr Greer has lodged two packages of amendments as options for improving that proportion. Amendments 43 to 46 work together to ensure that there is always a minimum of five teacher or college members on the board and that there must be a balanced proportion between teacher and college members where there is, at most, one more than the other. That teacher or college experience could come from any of the members on the board, including the chairing member. The amendments also ensure that, should the board size change, more than one third of the membership will always be teachers or college lecturers.

I have interpreted the alternative amendment 27 as taking a slightly more limiting approach that could impact on access to other skills being on the board. I understand that it will require there to always be a majority of members who are teachers or college teachers in the “other members” section of the board—that is, the section that does not include the chairing member, the accreditation convener or the chief executive.

That could have two effects. Mr Greer will agree that the first is especially undesirable, as the current board size would mean that there could be a lower minimum of just four teacher or college members. His alternative, which I am supporting, ensures that there will be five. The second is less desirable from a corporate governance perspective when it is read alongside the other specified criteria in the bill. It would mean that there is a risk that there could be insufficient seats on the board for the wider skills that would be needed to lead the organisation, because of the number of seats that are filled by teachers and other learner or staff-focused members. Taking all that into account, my preference would be to support amendments 43 and 46. I encourage members to do that.

I note that Ms Duncan-Glancy has lodged two amendments to support teacher members on the board. Amendment 215 would ensure that any teacher members who are appointed are teachers from schools. I see no issue with supporting that amendment, as it is the intention that they would be delivering qualifications in schools. If amendment 43 is accepted, amendment 215 will be pre-empted, but I would be happy to support making that change at stage 3.

Amendment 216 requires there to be a board member who is representative of a teaching trade union that operates in Scotland. As I have said many times during the progress of the bill, we must be mindful of the requirements for public body appointments, which come with the duty to govern effectively the organisation to which people are appointed, regardless of other roles that they might hold, so they should not represent the interests of other organisations while they are on the board.

I do not want to run the risk of creating a form of representative board model for qualifications Scotland. It was a representative board model at the SQA that was deemed to be one of the key sources of the failure that led to the awarding and examination issue in 2000. That drove forward urgent legislation at that time to change the board model to that which the SQA stipulates today. It meant that the board was specifically focused on corporate governance as well as the relevant education and skills experience. I therefore cannot support amendment 216. I encourage others to reject the amendment, noting that Mr Greer’s amendments, which I have referred to, should provide additional reassurance that qualifications Scotland will have sufficient teacher and college experience on the board.

I do, however, believe that there is good cause to strengthen the relationship between qualifications Scotland and the teaching unions. That is why I would be interested in lodging an amendment at stage 3 that would require the teaching and college board members to lead the board’s engagement and consultation with teaching unions. If Pam Duncan-Glancy sees that as something that we could work together on, I ask her not to move amendment 216.

Coming to the voice of staff on the board, throughout my engagement with SQA staff I have listened carefully to their desire for a more robust mechanism for qualifications Scotland. I understand that the trade unions that act for SQA staff would like to see board membership for them—a request that mirrors Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 217. I have considered that option carefully and I remain sympathetic to it. However, I have concerns about the application of direct staff roles in a non-departmental public body, given the associated corporate governance implications for how a trade union would work in practice for the operation of the board and, importantly, for the individual, given the focus and nature of the operational responsibilities of an NDPB and the need to navigate potentially significant conflicts of interest.

I am not sure that I agree with the member’s point, but I will come on to address more substantially some of the issues that she raises. The point that I am trying to make is that all those other bodies were considered a number of years ago, prior to my time in office, and a decision was made at that time that the status quo, although not ideal, represented the preferable place for accreditation to rest. However, in bringing the Government’s amendment 73 for debate, I am recognising and reflecting the committee’s views. I will come on to talk about what that amendment speaks to more generally.

There is a lack of alignment with the priorities of the quality assurance function. The new inspectorate’s focus will be schools and other educational settings, whereas the accreditation function is primarily focused on vocational, professional and tertiary education, as well as supporting the raising of quality and standards. An important element among those factors is affordability, which Mr Rennie rightly alighted on. The inspectorate would need a significant increase in funding and resource for the accreditation function to be able to operate within that type of public body.

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.

I am happy to do so.

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.