Chamber and committees

I agree with the cabinet secretary’s view that we should ensure through consultation requirements that parents are consulted as part of the proposed processes, particularly in relation to the corporate plan.

I will listen intently to what other members have to say about the strategic advisory council when we get to the relevant group of amendments. There are two quite different potential visions for the strategic advisory council. I think that having a parent voice on the strategic advisory council would make absolute sense if it is to be a broadly representative body. I do not want to pre-empt the debate on that group of amendments, but the other vision for the strategic advisory council is that it would be more like the international council of education advisers—in other words, it would be made up of academic experts. If that were to be the case, the strategic advisory council would not be an appropriate place for the voice of parents to be heard. However, we would then need to make sure that we found another place for a parent voice to be heard within the organisation and the wider structures of education governance.

I agree that the bill should include a provision that enshrines the involvement of parents, and I think that the cabinet secretary’s points about consultation are important. Once we get to the group on the strategic advisory council, there is a debate to be had about what direction we should go in. If we go in the direction of the strategic advisory council being a representative group, that might be the most appropriate place for a parent voice to be heard within the organisation and its committee and council structure.

I believe that my amendment 119 does the job that Martin Whitfield seeks to do with his amendment 226. I understand his point about the need to clarify the language in respect of the learner interest committee. Although I think that the language in the bill is appropriate, and I believe that the Government also thinks that it is appropriate, it would be helpful to amend that at stage 3 in the manner that Martin Whitfield has suggested—in other words, to remove the term “young people” and just say “children”, as we have a definition of children in Scots law. I would be happy for us to do that. However, as things stand, if my amendment 119 is agreed to, it would not be necessary for us to agree to amendment 226 as well.

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 am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her comments. She rightly points out that my amendment 3 in a later group covers very similar ground.

The cabinet secretary’s specific concerns around the drafting of the amendment are perfectly understandable. What I am really trying to get at—and I am looking to get reassurance on the record on this from the Government—is whether the Government is unequivocal that qualifications Scotland’s public service duties here in Scotland will be a greater priority than its international commercial activity. That is the core motivation behind my amendment.

Since the end of the SQA’s term—or certainly since the time of the pandemic; the situation has been slightly different since then—there has been no clear hierarchy of priorities in the organisation. If the cabinet secretary were able to intervene on me to assure me that the Government’s position is that those core public service responsibilities in Scotland will be a higher priority than international commercial activity, and that we can work together on a stage 3 amendment on that basis, I would be happy not to press amendment 2 at this stage.

The motivation behind this amendment is quite simple: it is based on the experiences of our predecessor committee in the previous session of Parliament, the Education and Skills Committee, in scrutinising the Scottish Qualifications Authority.

As far as I am concerned, the SQA’s primary function is to serve learners in Scotland in the delivery of qualifications that are relevant for them. However, in the previous session, we found that there had essentially been mission creep in the SQA’s commercial activities, which had resulted in a significant amount of time and energy from senior management at the SQA in particular being diverted away from the organisation’s core mission of serving learners in Scotland. It had also resulted in levels of international travel that were pretty hard to justify, with spending on pretty luxurious travel, accommodation and so on, and in the SQA taking its eye off the ball in many ways. That is what has led to the bill being necessary and to the fact that we are going to abolish the SQA and replace it.

Amendment 2 would set down a pretty simple principle right at the start, and would make it clear that the founding principle of qualifications Scotland is to support those who are undertaking its qualifications in Scotland.

I move amendment 2.

The cabinet secretary is quite legitimately laying out the challenges with each of the amendments in the group. Willie Rennie opened the debate on the group by acknowledging that none of the proposals meets the three criteria that we have all coalesced around. There is also quite clearly a majority on this committee and in Parliament for us to resolve the issue now through the bill—not through the review that the Scottish Government is proposing. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that? Would she be willing to facilitate some kind of cross-party discussion to reach a solution ahead of stage 3? If that were the case, I would urge members not to press amendments in this group and instead to go away and try to resolve the issue. If the Government cannot recognise that there is a majority to address the issue through the bill, I and other members will be forced to choose the least worst of the options in front of us now.

I do not want to be too flippant, but the rationale is quite simple. The organisation that we are replacing has proven itself undeserving of our trust and incapable in governance, in how it structures itself and in the operational decisions that it makes. That is why Parliament is now taking the dramatic step of abolishing the Scottish Qualifications Authority and replacing it with a new body. I want to ensure that we build in safeguards so that we do not repeat some of those mistakes. It sounds as if the cabinet secretary is essentially asking us to trust the new organisation and, although I hope that the new organisation will prove itself deserving of our trust, I do not think that the risk is worth taking, given why we have got to where we are now, and I think that we should put that safeguard into the legislation.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for laying out her rationale. I must admit that I am still somewhat unsure of the Government’s position and of exactly what the cabinet secretary is offering me. If the Government is willing to accept that we should legislate to separate those roles, I am perfectly happy to work with the cabinet secretary and come back with an amendment at stage 3 that addresses the point around the GTCS in particular—although I do not entirely agree with it, I am perfectly happy to address that point for the sake of achieving wider agreement.

I am grateful for that. It is valuable for us to achieve consensus wherever possible. On the basis that we will come back at stage 3 with an amendment that sets out the separation of those two roles, I am perfectly happy to not press amendment 47 to a vote or to move amendment 48.

On Mr Kerr’s amendments, I think that amendment 222 is too prescriptive and amendment 223 too restrictive. I have some sympathy for what is in amendment 221 as a broad statement of principles but, given that we will be coming back with amendments at stage 3 to address the points that we have been discussing on the separation of the roles, I would not vote for amendment 221 at this stage, although I could conceive of something in that area that I would be able to agree to at stage 3.

On the basis of the cabinet secretary’s reassurance, I will not press amendment 47 or move amendment 48 when we get to it.

Amendment 47, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 221 to 223 not moved.

I am particularly grateful to Martin Whitfield for making that point and clarifying that we want to hear from young people who may not be taking a qualifications Scotland qualification. On that basis, I would be happy to support his amendment 226 if he moves it at this stage, but it would be helpful if he could acknowledge that if both my amendment 119 and his amendment 226 are agreed to, we will need to do a little bit of reconciliation to tidy things up at stage 3.

The primary intention of the wording that the Government and I landed on in amendment 119—

“young people who are undertaking, or have recent experience of undertaking”—

qualifications, was, as I mentioned earlier, to ensure that we do not disqualify a young person as soon as they have completed their course. The experience of a young person who has, for example, just finished high school is really valuable: having been all the way through the process, they can reflect back on it—that is a voice that we want to hear.

Does Martin Whitfield appreciate that point and recognise that, if we agree to amendments 119, 120 and 226, we will need to do a little bit of tidying up to capture both of the points that we are getting at? The requirement does not necessarily need to be for the young people to be currently undertaking the qualifications, because those who are not undertaking any qualifications are a particularly important marginalised group who we need to hear from, but we do not want to exclude those who have already undertaken a qualification, such as school leavers.

I agree with that, absolutely. One of the best—if not the best—quality budget debates that we have had in this Parliament was in either 2017 or 2018, in the year in which the Scottish Government asked all the parties to put forward tax proposals. It then gave those to the SFC to come back with projections on them. That is the only year in which Opposition parties were invited to do that, and it improved the quality of the debate significantly. It is a shame that that did not then become a regular part of the budget process.

I have one final question about data and its availability. It is an issue that this committee keeps coming back to, it is in your report and every other committee touches on it. We produce and collect a vast amount of data, yet we consistently come up against the problem that it is not the right kind of data, that it is not what we actually wanted or that the data may well exist but it is not accessible to those who need it.

David Bell, in your paper you point to the national performance framework review as being a space in which that can be addressed. Is the NPF the right space for the Government to try to marshal the data that is available in the public sector in, or does something separate need to exist? Does there need to be clear overall ministerial responsibility for public data? I will not suggest a commissioner or anything like that; we already have a Scottish Information Commissioner, and this committee has strong views on having more commissioners. Is there a space or a point person or something that is needed to address that issue?

I am not convinced that just allowing the NPF review to take its course will necessarily address the issue. We will be back in the same place of collecting a vast amount of data, most of which we do not use and is not particularly usable, and we will either not collect or not be able to access the data that we really need.