Chamber and committees

I do not accept that at all, Ms Duncan-Glancy. In fact, the Government is moving forward with the appointments process in advance of the stage 2 amendments—that has been a point of discussion today, which I will reflect on—because we want the new body to have a functioning operational board in place as soon as the bill is passed. That is hugely important. We do not want the creation of qualifications Scotland to be delayed in any way, shape or form.

The reality is that, if we do not have the order passed today, it will not be possible to start making regulated board appointments to qualifications Scotland before its establishment. That issue is within the committee’s gift, but I need to make members aware of the effect of not passing the order today.

The stage 2 and stage 3 timescales will be well in advance of the recruitment process having been finalised. I am not clear why you think that the Government will not have to reflect that in the recruitment process—of course we will, because the committee and Parliament’s decisions on amendments will impact on how the board is constructed.

Absolutely. We will have to reflect on the amendments that are agreed by the Parliament at stage 2 and, potentially, stage 3, and reflect that in the board composition and the subsequent recruitment that takes place. You can take reassurance on that point.

Things could change as far as the board’s composition is concerned. I hope that you hear my acceptance on that point. However, I have been provided with advice on the risks of our not having an operational board if the draft order that is before the committee is not passed today. It would delay the process that needs to be undertaken, to which Ms Hicks has spoken.

Nico made a hugely important point. In the stage 1 report there was acceptance that a board would need to be created. There is a requirement for the order to be introduced to allow us to do so. I take on board the convener’s and Ms Duncan-Glancy’s points about stages 2 and 3. We have given a reassurance today that the Government will have to reflect that in our recruitment processes, but that is a normal part of a Government establishing a new NDPB. On the other hand, considering an alternative approach would leave the Government open to the risk of having to run a truncated recruitment process that might not be acceptable to the Ethical Standards Commissioner. We would need to speak to the commissioner about that.

There would be an inherent risk in our not moving forward with the order, because we would not be able to make the required appointments, notwithstanding that the Government would have to—and will—listen to amendments at stages 2 and 3. This is about timescales in establishing the new body. If the committee were to vote down the order today, or not move on it, that would delay the appointments process, and potentially delay the establishment of qualifications Scotland as a body. Members should be aware of that real inherent risk this morning.

Mr Mason, I am not surprised by some of the questioning, although I am not sure that I share your views about my former union—the EIS.

This is a normal order, and such orders are required when making board appointments. I accept that there is a diverse range of views around the committee table in relation to board appointments, and the Government will have to reflect that in its recruitment processes. If we do not move now, there will be a delay to appointment processes. That would be concerning, because that would impact on the delivery model that is associated with qualifications Scotland.

The member spoke about the Scottish Fiscal Commission. I also reflect my responsibilities, in a previous life, as Minister for Transport, when we routinely appointed board members to Scottish Rail Holdings Limited. It will be of interest to Ms Duncan-Glancy to note that there was railway trade union representation on the SRH board, which was an ask at that time.

As I said, this is a normal order. I go back to my concern about delaying the process, but that is a matter for the committee to decide on today; it is not for me.

Nico McKenzie-Juetten also highlighted the point that, if we took a truncated approach, it might lead to a scenario in which some of the board appointments would be unregulated, which would be highly unusual.

As education secretary, it is always very difficult for me to comment on specific circumstances. If you want to share with me details of the school or the local authority, I will be happy to ask officials to speak to them directly about that.

On the general observation, we know that ASN can sometimes be a hindrance to attendance if the necessary support is not in place. In the debate last night, I spoke about a constituent of mine who had to take her local authority to a tribunal. It ruled in her favour, but the fight to get support that she is legally entitled to under the ASL legislation was an inordinate pressure on her and her family.

You mentioned school buildings. It is difficult for me to comment on them as they belong to local authorities, but no impediment should be put in place to a young person accessing their education. The legislation sets out that it is a legal requirement to send your child or young person to school. I do not want to take away from the challenge that that presents for a number of parents, as has been the case post-pandemic in particular. We want to have a really supportive approach to helping parents with that. Lots of approaches have been used with PEF, which I have spoken about, and headteachers use various approaches.

It is quite difficult for me to speak to the specifics that you have mentioned without knowing a bit more about the background. If you want to share more with me, either after the session or in writing, I will be more than happy to meet you and the parents in order to hear a bit more and to engage with the local authority in question. We want those young people to be in school.

We need attainment to improve across the piece—that is the focus of today’s evidence session—but attainment is particularly important for young people with an identified additional support need. We want them to be in education, and we want no barriers to be in their way to accessing it. I am happy to engage with you more on the issue.

Convener, I am not sure that, in 2016, even you could have anticipated a global pandemic.