Chamber and committees

That is a fair point, which is why I landed on the phrase “have regard to” in amendment 6. It would therefore not be a requirement that qualifications Scotland follow the specific priorities set out by the Government of the time; instead, it should “have regard to” them.

After all, there are a number of challenges here. There is the core democratic challenge of Governments, which is that, regardless of their political hue or ideology, they have a democratic mandate to pursue whatever course of action they want. However, another challenge is this: if priorities are not set out by the Government, who does set them out? We in the Parliament might have reached as close to a consensus as possible on a whole range of issues—my example of life sciences is probably one area that we would all agree should be a strategic priority for Scotland—but somebody needs to set out the priorities.

Let me take, for example, an area that has been recently discussed. There are thousands of gas boiler engineers in Scotland who at some point over the coming years—we disagree on the timescale—will need to be retrained. Alongside being a gas boiler engineer, they will also need to be qualified in the installation and maintenance of, say, heat pumps. Therefore, we must ensure that our qualifications system provides for them and their long-term economic security.

The same could be applied to other areas. The film and television industry is a good example of an area where the SQA has been nimble and responded not just to the needs of industry but to other public bodies.

It is not unusual for us to hear, often in private, criticism from officials of other public bodies in Scotland that they have not had the engagement that they needed from the SQA and have not been able to update qualifications—nor, indeed, to develop new ones—to meet the needs of a particular sector of the economy. The screen sector is one for which, in recent years, there has been excellent collaboration between the SQA and Screen Scotland; I want to make sure of an underlying principle to mainstream that approach across the piece, to make sure that qualifications Scotland plays its role in those wider efforts.

I agree with all the cabinet secretary’s amendments in the group. I congratulate in particular the young people, their parents, carers and the organisations that work with them, who campaigned for the British Sign Language provisions that the cabinet secretary has taken forward. The efforts that they have made are worth all our congratulations.

I turn, very briefly, to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments. I agree with her amendment 234. It aligns with my amendment 6 and my amendment 35, which is in another group. I absolutely agree with her amendment 235. If the SQA had been keeping up to date with developments in pedagogy, our qualifications system—certainly, our exam system—would look very different to the one that we have at the moment, which is, in its fundamental principles, almost entirely unchanged from the system that was first set up in the Victorian era in order to have a national exam system in Scotland.

I have concerns about Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 240, because, to me, “simplifying” and “ensuring ... coherence” are different aims. I can get behind the principle of coherence, but I am wary about what “simplifying” means; I think that it means something different to each of us—certainly, from discussions in the past, I think that the cabinet secretary and I have different ideas on the desirability of a simplified system and perhaps on which qualifications are no longer necessary, which is why I am wary about putting such a provision in legislation, certainly without expanding or clarifying what “simplifying” means. The drafting of amendment 240 says “simplifying” rather than “simple”; are we to be in a never-ending process of trying to simplify the system regardless of how simple it becomes? I am therefore not particularly convinced by amendment 240 at this stage, to be honest.

I have already said that I strongly agree with the principle of Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 237, but we need to make sure that it cuts both ways. I agree with her amendment 239 and with Stephen Kerr’s amendment 236.

Again, my amendments in this group are about increasing transparency and confidence that qualifications Scotland is engaging with the advice that it receives. I should say that my amendments 36 and 37 and Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 283 and 284 do essentially the same thing, mine for the interest committees and Ms Duncan-Glancy’s for the advisory committee.

The amendments would require qualifications Scotland to publish the advice that it receives and the response that it has produced. That is about trying to increase transparency, and it would give those involved on the interest committees and on the advisory committee more confidence that their advice was being taken seriously, even on occasions when that advice was not necessarily taken on board. It is critical for those in the system more widely, including learners and practitioners, to see that advice and how the body is responding to it.

One of the criticisms of the SQA has been that it does not take on board advice from those with direct knowledge of how to deliver the qualifications or experience of undertaking them. Increasing transparency in that regard would, I think, result in greater buy-in and trust across the system.

I move amendment 36.

In conclusion, I confirm that the basis on which I would be happy not to move my amendments—and I suggest that the same is true for others—is that the cabinet secretary confirms that the Government accepts the principle of co-design as part of the process.

Yes, but I want to make a point and raise an issue first.

I like the points about monitoring compliance in amendments 261 and 271. Although I am wary about creating an unequivocal requirement to comply, the monitoring points have value.

Amendment 285, which would require the organisation to publish a report in instances in which the charters had not been complied with, has a lot of value. I am wary that the organisation, by not complying, would be breaching its legislative duties, but there should be transparency around situations in which it has not complied. In such situations, the organisation should explain why it believes that non-compliance was necessary and should be held to account as appropriate.

Martin Whitfield made the point about this being a one-off exercise, and I do not think that it is a particularly onerous one. I am seeking clarity from the member. I think that there is broad agreement about the educational benefits of having the unique learner number and data sharing, but the real challenges are around the practicalities of data sharing and the data and privacy rights of the individuals concerned—the learners. Will the member clarify that the suggestion is not for the strategic advisory council to consider those questions? I suggest that that is outwith the expertise that the individuals who we are proposing to sit on the advisory council will have. They would be focusing solely on the educational benefits of such an approach, not on dealing with practical and legal questions around data sharing and privacy rights.

I agree that that is a significant challenge. However, I suggest that a wider challenge is that we are just over a quarter of a century into devolution, and Parliament should have had a wider discussion about its ability to effectively scrutinise and hold public bodies to account before now. I am glad that we are starting to have that discussion, and I understand the issues of precedence that the amendment potentially sets.

My main motivation in lodging amendment 60 is to put that challenge to the Government and to seek its reassurance about how it will avoid the situation that we have been in up until now, in which a public body—in this case, the SQA—has been so resistant to parliamentary accountability that, at points in the past, the committee has genuinely entertained the idea of simply not inviting it back, because we questioned the purpose of bringing it in, in terms of the value of its evidence to the committee and its disregard of the recommendation that the committee made in response. As I have said, my main motivation in lodging the amendment is to put that to the Government and to seek its response as to how we will ensure that qualifications Scotland does not repeat those challenges, that it submits itself to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and that it gives due regard—even if that is not the language used in the legislation—to the recommendations put to it by Parliament.

I turn briefly to the other amendments in the group. I agree with the cabinet secretary’s amendment 59, which is quite simple and contributes to the transparency objective that I have been pursuing elsewhere.

Although I am keen on Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 242 in principle, I am a little wary of the specificity of the reference to quarterly meetings and of putting that into legislation. It is quite a rigid requirement. Bodies that I have chaired in the past have been required by their own constitution to meet a certain number of times a year, but there were various points in the year when we realised that it would have been more hassle than it was worth to have a meeting, because the previous one had been sufficiently productive or for other such reasons. I am broadly content with the amendment, but I would be open to a bit more flexibility being brought in at stage 3. I will close there, convener.

I move amendment 57.

I take on board the cabinet secretary’s point about amendment 60, and I will restrain myself from giving a much longer response to the interventions of Liz Smith and Martin Whitfield on the wider question of the performance of the Parliament, parliamentary scrutiny and our capacity to do that. Having written most of the Green group’s response to the work that Mr Whitfield’s committee is currently doing on that, I welcome that work, as he may have been able to tell from the tone of some of my contribution.

I am happy not to press amendment 57 and not to move amendments 7 and 8 in relation to consultation, and to continue speaking to the cabinet secretary about that. The key point that I was looking for was an acknowledgement of the need in some circumstances for that wider consultation, not just consultation with the committees. The cabinet secretary has acknowledged that and, if we can come back at stage 3 with something satisfactory, I will be happy with that.

As I have said, I will not move amendment 60.

I will move amendment 58 and press it to a vote, because the requirement that it would place is not onerous. We are already placing into legislation the requirement for the strategic advisory council to give advice, so it is proportionate to place a reciprocal requirement on qualifications Scotland to respond.

Amendment 57, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 7 and 8 not moved.

Amendment 58 moved—[Ross Greer].

Amendment 61 is relatively simple. The intention is to make sure that there is no gatekeeping of key information by qualifications Scotland staff and that, if the strategic advisory council makes a reasonable request for information to discharge its duties, that information is provided. Again, the amendment is a reflection of the issues of trust, transparency, accountability and so on that have got us here.

The debate on amendment 62 is equivalent to the debate on the presence of staff that we have already had in relation to the learner interest committee and the teacher and practitioner interest committee. There is no reason for members of qualifications Scotland staff to be on the strategic advisory council. The purpose of the council is to provide advice based on expertise, lived experience and so on. Given the debates that we have already had and the decisions that we have made in relation to those committees, it would be appropriate to take the same approach to the strategic advisory council.

Amendment 66 would clarify that qualifications Scotland staff can still attend meetings of the strategic advisory council. I of course want them to be there and to hear the discussions, but I want to make sure that the power dynamic in the room is appropriately balanced, and the best way to do that is for staff to not be members of the council.

My amendment 9, the cabinet secretary’s amendments 63, 64 and 65 and Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 252 are all broadly in the same space of consultation. We have just had a similar debate on the wider duties on qualifications Scotland to consult. My amendment 9 is almost identical to the amendment that I moved in a previous group on qualifications Scotland. Given that the cabinet secretary has agreed to my key point about the need for consultation with the wider group of learners beyond the interest committees, and with those who undertake qualifications and those who deliver them, and on the basis of that previous discussion, I will be happy not to move amendment 9 if the cabinet secretary agrees to take the same approach with amendments 63, 64 and 65.

I suggest to Pam Duncan-Glancy that we take the same approach to amendment 252, so that we can resolve the issue around consultation requirements, responsibilities and encouragement—the nudge that I mentioned previously—in a coherent and consistent manner.

I will start off by talking to amendment 58, by way of explanation, as that will make for the most coherent sequencing.

Amendment 58 is, I hope, quite simple. It reflects the feedback that I have had, and that I know that other members have had, around the significant disillusionment among those who have, in good faith, given their time in order to give advice to the SQA in recent years, and who have either felt that that advice has not been taken on board, or simply never heard back and do not know what happened as a result.

It would be inappropriate to mandate that qualifications Scotland has to take on board whatever advice it has received. Advice can be contradictory, not all advice is correct, and two perfectly reasonable pieces of advice can be mutually exclusive. That is therefore not what I am seeking to do. I am simply seeking to provide a feedback loop to the strategic advisory council in particular. If we are expecting people to contribute to the success of the organisation through the strategic advisory council and, as specified in the legislation, to provide advice to the organisation, it is only reasonable to require the organisation to then feed back to the advisory council on how it has decided to act in response to that advice. That is therefore what amendment 58 seeks to do.

Amendments 57, 7 and 8 are on consultation requirements. They are really just about expanding the groups that we think that qualifications Scotland should consult as it goes about discharging its duties. Consulting those groups is not a requirement; the amendments relate to a section that specifies that qualifications Scotland should consult where it believes that it is “appropriate to do so”—so not in all circumstances. That goes back to what I described last week in relation to the nudge that we are trying to give the organisation. It is not necessary for qualifications Scotland to consult widely in every instance on every decision that it makes, but I want it to actively consider whether it should do so. In the past five years, certainly—indeed, I would argue in the past 10 to 20 years—there has been a range of occasions when the SQA would have benefited from consulting widely, particularly with students, learners, teachers and lecturers, on relatively simple decisions, where the consultation requirements would not have been onerous—situations when yes/no survey-type responses would have resulted in very valuable data.

Amendment 8 specifies who we are talking about in that regard. As a matter of course, qualifications Scotland should consult the learner interest committee and the teacher and practitioner interest committee, but I have also specified that it should consult those undertaking qualifications and those who are delivering the qualifications—in other words, students, teachers and lecturers—and I have included a catch-all reference to any others that qualifications Scotland believes to be appropriate.

Again, this is about trying to provide a clear direction of travel and an indication of what we expect from the organisation, without being too prescriptive about all the circumstances under which it must consult. The point is that consulting only the committees is not necessarily enough and that the organisation should consider whether, in certain circumstances, it is appropriate to consult more widely. Certainly, an element of the feedback that we have received up until now is that, even where good-quality consultation has taken place—for example, with the learner panel of the SQA—the vast majority of learners in Scotland have not known anything about it, and there should be wider consultation. Even if the response is not necessarily taken on board, the act of consultation, in and of itself, generates buy-in to the decisions that are eventually made and generates good faith in the organisation.

Amendment 60 is an unusual one. I acknowledge from the start that I am not aware of other circumstances in which we are so specific in legislation that a public body must give due regard to the views expressed by the Parliament. However, again, that reflects our experience with the SQA, which has brought us to this point. It would not be appropriate to specify that all recommendations made by the Parliament be taken on board. We can all acknowledge that, as much as our committee inquiry reports are generally of a very high quality, it is not necessarily the case that we get everything right all the time, and we cannot mandate that those be followed.

I am grateful to the member for his intervention, and for not making the intervention that was requested by Mr Kerr, because I am about to conclude.

The principle of democratic accountability and the Crown are two somewhat alien and mutually exclusive concepts. In practical terms, however, the point that I am making is not about the institution of the monarchy, but about the head of state. Even a president should not be able to flick through the CVs of potential candidates for chief inspector. Indeed, given that we have—nominally, although I would disagree—a politically neutral and independent head of state in the King, it would be deeply inappropriate if they ever intervened in the process and rejected a nominee that was put forward to them by the Scottish ministers. That would go against the constitutional settlement that we have in the modern United Kingdom, and it would certainly go against the settlement that the monarchy purports to support in respect of neutrality in that regard.

As I said, this set of amendments is really about the principle of efficiency. I do not think that the appointments and oversight process should be done via the Crown, which is symbolically independent but not independent in practice. For it to be genuinely independent, the process would include the possibility of the Crown rejecting proposed appointments that were made by the Scottish ministers, which would violate a pretty core element of our existing constitutional set-up.