Chamber and committees

I will come on to the explanation of the rationale behind my positioning on the amendments, if the member will allow me to do so. There are challenges with amendment 47 as drafted, and my explanation of them will answer some of the points that Ms Duncan-Glancy makes.

It is my expectation—this is the original point that I was making—that the structure that involves the separation of those responsibilities will transfer into qualifications Scotland. One of my concerns about the amendment relates to the fact that qualifications Scotland will be an NDPB, which means that it will be responsible for its own staffing and operational structures, and I am not overly convinced of the need to prescribe that particular role in legislation, nor for ministers to be responsible for approving staff appointments, with the exception of the chief executive.

I want to provide assurances to Mr Greer that I have every intention of supporting qualifications Scotland in developing its renewed leadership structure, which I think talks to some of the issues that Ms Duncan-Glancy and Mr Kerr were speaking to in relation to culture shift. The body has to better support the delivery of qualifications and assessment, and, as I outlined, much of that work is already under way in relation to the changes that have been brought forward in recent months by the current chair—I was going to call her the new chair, but you chastised me for calling her that at our previous meeting, convener, as she is not that new.

The objection is twofold. The first objection, which the member alludes to, is that there is no requirement for the matter to be dealt with in legislation. That also raises the issue of the role of ministers in stipulating staffing structures in an organisation, which is highly unusual.

I understand members’ interest in the matter and why Mr Greer—I am guessing—does not want a rolling back in relation to the separation of the roles. I am happy to look at the issue at stage 3 with the member. I have real concerns about the GTCS stipulation as drafted, because it could potentially exclude people from outwith Scotland who have undertaken their teacher training elsewhere. That is concerning. Staffing structures should be a matter for the organisation and not really for ministerial interference. It would perhaps be helpful for me to hear a bit more from Mr Greer, if the convener would allow me to, on his rationale for the requirement for the separation to be spelled out in legislation, given that the organisation has already shifted in recognition of the challenges.

I used £600,000.

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?

There are now two men thinking about my body language. [Laughter.]

There has been continuous engagement with the Information Commissioner’s Office in relation to data sharing across the board. The point that I was trying to make is that we have a local pilot happening in the north-east. On the chronology of what needs to happen next—this has been going on for some time now—the data-sharing arrangement is currently being finalised. The data sharing is due to take place in the spring, and the evaluation work is planned for later this year, at which point I would expect engagement to be undertaken with local partners and the Information Commissioner’s Office.

From that pilot we will learn how best to approach a national roll-out. Of course we will have to engage with the Information Commissioner’s Office on that, and on the learning from the pilot, but the pilot and the data-sharing arrangement have not yet been completed. The chronology of that is important in relation to the engagement with the Information Commissioner’s Office, the learning from the pilot and how we can upscale it and potentially roll it out at national level.

Indeed. No issues have thus far been raised with me or been presented to me by officials, but I would be more than happy to engage with the committee on that. As I understand it, there was no requirement to have that process completed by the laying of the SSI today, but there will be for it to come into force on 19 May.

I will sit very quietly and allow you to interrupt and interject consistently. It is not particularly pleasant, but I will allow you to continue, Mr Ross.

We will ask Social Security Scotland to provide a written update to the committee. We want more young people to have access to university and higher education, but we also want them to have access to free school meals, which is the purpose of the SSI that is before us today. We will take that point away and provide the committee with a further update on the points that Ms Duncan-Glancy has raised, which are very fair.