Chamber and committees

I absolutely agree with that. Members have hinted at that in their comments, as did the cabinet secretary in her response to my earlier intervention. I repeat that, if we move to a vote on any of the current options, we will not achieve consensus. There is still the possibility for us to achieve consensus if we can continue the discussion outwith stage 2 proceedings and bring something forward at stage 3.

I support the amendments in principle, and my intention is to support them, if they are moved. I am about to make a suggestion in relation to one of those amendments, but, yes, if they are moved, I would support the amendments on union representation.

However, I take on board the cabinet secretary’s suggestion that that is something that could be worked towards in relation to my amendment 27. Again, if there is a collective desire, particularly on the part of the cabinet secretary and Pam Duncan-Glancy, for us to work on that and to reach agreement ahead of stage 3, I would be content with that.

Just for clarity, on the cabinet secretary’s comment about my amendment 29, the intention is to clarify that the board member who would represent young people would be a representative of those who are undertaking a qualifications Scotland qualification. I believe that to be a simple point of clarification that will ensure that focus. If the Government feels that there is any ambiguity in relation to that amendment—if there is support for the amendment in principle but concern about the drafting—I would be happy to work on that ahead of stage 3.

I accept the Government’s point about term limits. We should not put everything in legislation if we do not have to, and I take the cabinet secretary’s point about being able to evolve with best practice, as the code does, in a manner that is obviously easier to change than legislation. Therefore, I will not be moving amendments 30 and 31.

On Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments relating to the overall size of the board, I agree with amendments 212 and 213, because we need to increase the size of the board to address some of the issues around representation that we have been talking about. As for amendment 211 and the minimum membership of the board, we might have been talking somewhat at cross purposes in the discussion that we have just had, because I agree with Pam Duncan-Glancy on the requirement for the board to include the various individuals whom we are talking about, particularly union representatives.

However, the cabinet secretary’s point was about ensuring that the board is still able to function in situations where there are vacancies—in other words, ensuring that the board is still quorate, even when a certain number of positions are unfilled. I think that those two positions can be reconciled—they are not mutually exclusive. As it stands, I would support Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 212 and 213, but not amendment 211, as I think that the cabinet secretary’s amendment 41 is desirable for exactly the reasons that she set out—namely that, if we were in a situation in which members had stood down before the end of their term and the board was still required to carry out its functions, I would want it to be able to do so rather than that resulting in the board becoming inquorate.

On Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 214, which seeks to bring young people on to the board, I have lodged an alternative amendment that uses a different definition. It relates somewhat to what the cabinet secretary had to say in that respect, because it would be inadvisable and suboptimal to have a young person on the board who would immediately have to leave at the point at which they had completed their qualification. Having had the experience of going right through the qualification process, that young person would have a lot to contribute to the board, and I would not want them to get to the end of their sixth year, complete their QS qualifications and then be immediately disqualified from the board. It would be really valuable to have them on the board at a point when they can reflect on that experience. That is why I have used a wider definition, which would allow—to use a somewhat clumsy term—an older young person to sit on the board.

Amendments 43 to 46, which I have worked on with the Government, try to address some of the issues that we have talked about in relation to minimum representation for the educators whom we are talking about. Primarily, we are talking about teachers and lecturers. I will be moving amendments 43 to 46, as I do not think that doing so will preclude our working together on any of the issues that we have talked about in relation to my amendment 27 and some of Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments.

As for amendments 215 and 216, I agree in principle with Pam Duncan-Glancy that there should be teacher representation, but I want to tease out what the cabinet secretary was saying about potential conflicts of interest. I should say that I do agree with Martin Whitfield’s point on that, too. Would it satisfy the Government if we said that any individual on the board was to be “nominated by” an education trade union operating in Scotland, rather than that they were to be a representative of a union? That person would have the experience to be nominated by the union. Does the Scottish Government’s issue with the language come from the fact that having a representative of a union on the board could create a conflict of interest, and could that be resolved if the union were still able to nominate someone without the provision saying that they had to be a “representative”? Perhaps the cabinet secretary could reflect on that and intervene.

My intention at this time is to support amendments 216 and 217, because I think it is right that staff of qualifications Scotland are on the board.

I do not support amendment 218 and direct members to my amendments 6 and 35, which will come in later groups. My concerns are similar to those of the cabinet secretary. Also, my amendment 6 would require qualifications Scotland to “have regard to” wider economic priorities and amendment 35 would require consultation with businesses on the corporate plan. I think that that is adequate for the purposes that we are discussing.

I share the cabinet secretary’s concerns about amendment 220. I like the principle of the board being able to co-opt members, but I do not think that what is currently there is compatible with the procedure for public appointments. I therefore ask Pam Duncan-Glancy not to move that amendment, as I think that we can come to a satisfactory conclusion on that issue at stage 3.

I apologise for not having done this earlier, but I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for working with me on several of these amendments over some months; I very much appreciate the collaborative approach that they have taken.

As the cabinet secretary said, amendment 32 is designed to strengthen the link between the learner interest committee and the board in particular. That is based on the experience of and the feedback from those on the learner panels that the SQA has run in recent years. It is certainly the perspective of the learners on the panels that it has often been the case that the SQA senior management have been the only people in receipt of their advice, which they have often disregarded. Very often, the board of the organisation has simply not been involved in that. There is a question around whether the board has received the advice and not considered it—never mind acted on it—or whether the board has not received the advice at all.

My intention with amendment 32 is to strengthen that link and to make it clear that the learner interest committee will have a relationship with the board of qualifications Scotland and with the organisation’s staff. Both groups—staff and board members—would benefit from having that direct relationship and the advice that they would get from the learner interest committee.

Amendments 119 and 120 are about clarifying the membership of the learner interest committee—the committee took a lot of evidence on that at stage 1. What I seek to do is twofold. First, I seek to clarify that the learner interest committee should not have qualifications Scotland staff members on it. Secondly, I seek to clarify that the learner interest committee should include children and young people and also adult learners.

The 18-year-olds who are taking an advanced higher course, as raised in Pam Duncan-Glancy’s point, would be covered under proposed new subparagraph b(ii) as set out in amendment 119. The amendment is intended to clarify that children and young people have unique needs so there is a unique role for them on the committee. It would also clarify that qualifications Scotland serves adult learners—that is, those who are 18 and over.

I am not a lawyer, but I know that the Scottish Government legal directorate seemed to be content with the language in this case. If there is a need to revise the language at stage 3, we can do that. Amendments 119 and 120 were drafted in collaboration with the Scottish Government, so I believe that there is sufficient clarity that we are talking about children and young people—children under Scots law, as Martin Whitfield says—and that we are including adult learners.

I will not move amendment 1. I took the interesting approach of starting off with what I felt was a compromise position and then, after discussion with the cabinet secretary, we both agreed that, rather than compromise, we should go further on this, which is where the relevant section of amendment 119 comes from. As the cabinet secretary says, the combination of amendments 119 and 120 would go further than amendment 1.

Amendment 33 follows the same principle as amendment 32; it would make sure that the teacher and practitioner committee would have a direct relationship with the board and the staff of qualifications Scotland. I want to make sure that the senior management would not be gatekeeping and that the committees feel that they have a direct link with the board.

Amendment 121 is based on a similar principle to that of amendment 119 and would make sure that the organisation’s staff are not on the teacher and practitioner committee.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her offer to work together ahead of stage 3 on amendment 51 regarding having a student teacher on the board. Student teachers would have an important and useful perspective; that is certainly the feedback that I have had when speaking to teachers. Headteachers in particular were keen on there being at least one student teacher involved to give that perspective. I am happy not to move amendment 51 and to come back to the matter at stage 3.

To address Pam Duncan-Glancy’s point about whether the provisions in the consultation amendments—50 and 52—would be too onerous, I point to the wording of the amendments, which says that the committees should engage in consultation

“in every case in which it appears to the committee appropriate to do so”.

That is, the committees would not have to do that in every case; they would only have to do it when they believe that it is appropriate to do so. The intention of the amendments is to give the committees a firm nudge that consultation should be a normal part of their procedure. That reflects on the fact that one of the key criticisms of the SQA in recent years is that there has not been nearly enough consultation with other key groups—the learner panel, for example—and also that there has not been enough wider consultation. Amendments 50 and 52 would not place a requirement to consult all the time—only when the committees believe that it is appropriate to do so.

I will briefly touch on other members’ amendments. I agree absolutely with the cabinet secretary on amendment 49, which I think represents a useful way of strengthening the role and the voice of qualifications Scotland staff. I am sympathetic to amendment 225. If the drafting issues can be resolved at stage 3, that would be beneficial.

I agree with what the cabinet secretary said about Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 227 and 228. I think that they would fundamentally change the nature of the learner interest committee and the teacher and practitioner interest committee and would dilute the voice of learners and teachers and practitioners on those committees. There are other ways of doing what those amendments seek to do. It is particularly important that the voice of parents is heard, but their voice should not be heard at the expense of learners by diluting the voice of learners on the learner interest committee.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for laying out the rationale for her position. For clarity, can she say whether, if I were to withdraw the amendment and come back with an equivalent to it that still separates those roles but addresses the GTCS point and takes a wider definition of an educator, the Government would be able to support it?

I am a little confused by the cabinet secretary’s explanation. On the one hand, it sounds like the Government objects to separating the roles in statute, full stop. However, on the other hand, it sounds like it is just a drafting issue. If it is the latter, I am perfectly happy to withdraw the amendment and come back at stage 3 to address the point about the requirement for membership of the GTCS being too restrictive. However, it does not sound like that is the Government’s objection; it sounds like the Government objects to us separating those roles in the bill, full stop.

This intervention can replace the contribution to the debate that I was going to make, convener.

In relation to amendment 288, would Katy Clark agree that institutions—schools, in particular—should have a duty of care to anyone who walks through the doors? I know that there is no intention to exclude anyone, but, to take schools as an example, I note that, although a school absolutely has a duty of care to its pupils and to its teachers, it also has a duty of care to its support staff.

In relation to violence against women and girls, I am particularly conscious that it is often women on the school support staff who are shown the least respect and who have to endure the most unacceptable sexual harassment. If we are heading towards a blanket duty of care—and I am glad that Katy Clark has lodged the amendments—we should ensure that that duty is to everyone who steps through the door of any of these establishments and, in particular, to all members of staff.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for that. On that basis, I will not press amendment 2 to a vote.

Amendment 2, by agreement, withdrawn.

Schedule 1—Qualifications Scotland

That is a fair point from the cabinet secretary. I expressed scepticism at the time—I will need to check whether that is recorded in the Official Report or whether my comments were made in another setting—about the refreshed national improvement framework being the driver for change and based on a consensus around a refreshed vision for education.

Although there are areas to welcome in the national improvement framework, it does not adequately address Liz Smith’s point about a shared refreshed vision for Scottish education as a whole. The framework has some specific areas around which we would probably find consensus, but if we had that refreshed vision and consensus around the core principles of the system, it would make it easier to address some of these quite knotty questions. I do not think that we have quite achieved that.

I will finish on that point, convener. I tried to finish five minutes ago, but I am glad that I did not because I think that the interventions have added significantly to the debate.

I agree absolutely. It comes back to a point that a few of us raised earlier, and not just in relation to the bill. The fact is that, we are four years into this parliamentary session and multiple areas of education reform have been carried out simultaneously. We have had the national discussion about the curriculum, Professor Hayward’s review and we have the set of governance reforms that are contained in the bill. In addition, we now have what we did not expect to have at the start of the session: the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill, which addresses some of the issues around the skills landscape.

Throughout the process, a number of us have raised concerns that the sequencing of all that is challenging to the point of creating areas in which it is impossible for us to address the issues adequately without knowing what the outcomes of other elements of the process will be. I do not think that there was ever a perfect way to do that, but, at some point, there needs to be a chronology or a sequence, and we need to make those decisions. Part of the issue is that, at this time, some of the processes seem to have gone nowhere.

On the national discussion and the broader vision, the idea of trying to coalesce around some kind of consensus on the curriculum and on the core ethos of Scottish education seems to have disappeared. I do not see what the outcome of the national discussion was. If we achieved consensus on a refreshed vision for Scottish education, it would probably make it easier for us to answer some of the specific questions of governance, structure and function.

The frustration across the committee is clear. Indeed, I share the frustration with the Government that this issue has been considered for so long—yet here we are at stage 2 without the Government having put forward a satisfactory solution. However, as has been mentioned, it is worth reflecting on the fact that, even after the significant volume of evidence that we, as a committee, took at stage 1, we could not collectively come to a clear, satisfactory conclusion on the matter. Clearly, this is the single most challenging issue with regard to the bill.

A majority of committee members and, I think, a majority across the Parliament want there to be a greater distance between the accreditation function and the rest of the functions that are currently proposed for qualifications Scotland. However, all the options that are in front of us have significant pitfalls.

Putting the accreditation function into Education Scotland would do the opposite of creating that greater distance, because, in essence, it would give the function to the Scottish ministers, and that would undermine the principle of what we are trying to achieve.

My initial preference was to move accreditation to the SCQF Partnership. However, as I started drafting amendments to that effect, it became clear—as has been made clear from a lot of the issues that have been raised today—that the SCQF Partnership is not the right home for it, not least because that organisation is a charity, not a public body.

I will come back to this point when we get to the relevant group later, but I will say now that we need to look at the status of the SCQF Partnership. The body is integral to the Scottish education system. As successful as it is, it is not part of our public sector and is not accountable in the way that the rest of the public sector is. That is not a criticism of it but a question about its status.

Obviously, we cannot simply remove accreditation from qualifications Scotland and not put the function somewhere else. I am interested in Pam Duncan-Glancy’s proposals on curriculum Scotland. I am wary of them, to be honest, but we will get into the substance of that in a later group of amendments.

I am willing to reconsider the options on accreditation once we have had the debate on whether to set up a new body. Like John Mason, I sit on the Finance and Public Administration Committee. It recently considered similar issues, particularly in relation to proposals for new Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body-appointed bodies. It proposed a moratorium on their establishment, to which Parliament agreed.

I absolutely agree with Stephen Kerr’s point about the need for a more granular discussion of the issue. This debate has been incredibly valuable in that regard. A range of new information on potential costs has been put on the record this morning, not least by the cabinet secretary. We need more discussion at that granular level, and I certainly want a greater understanding of some of the specific issues that have been teased out.

I repeat what I said earlier in an intervention on the cabinet secretary and what Martin Whitfield has also said: there is clearly a collective desire for us to reach a satisfactory conclusion. There is also clearly a recognition that none of the options that are in front of us is perfect. Given that, I suggest that none of the amendments be pressed at this stage if the Government can commit to facilitating discussion, for all interested members, to enable us to try to coalesce around a satisfactory solution—it will not be perfect—ahead of stage 3. If we cannot do that, I and other members will have to pick the least imperfect of the options. At the moment, I would probably lean towards placing accreditation with the inspectorate, imperfect as that option is. However, I do not think that we have to choose that at this stage. I think that we can come to a more satisfactory conclusion at stage 3, if we can have those further detailed discussions between now and then.