Chamber and committees

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.

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 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 conscious that we are now at that part of the proceedings that George Adam referred to at stage 1 as the MGM chorus line of everyone who could be involved.

The cabinet secretary’s reflections on the issues with the composition of the SQA board in 2000 were interesting, but the amendments that I have lodged reflect the issues with the SQA board that we have seen in the past decade. The cabinet secretary, Liz Smith and I will be particularly familiar with those issues from our time on the previous session’s Education and Skills Committee, whereby many—not all, but many—of SQA’s governance failures could be partly traced back to the fact that, for substantial periods of time in its recent history, the SQA has had almost no individuals who are educators on its board. Indeed, until very recently, it had only one headteacher—and no classroom teachers at all. However, it did have three management consultants. I do not want to dismiss the importance of corporate governance, but I think that the public would expect our national qualifications agency to have more educators than management consultants on its board. Again, that is not a judgment on the three individuals who were there at the time.

To that end, amendment 27 sets out a simple principle that a majority of the board must be qualified educators. It does not specify that they should be working in a school, a college or another setting, just that they are qualified educators.

To address Pam Duncan-Glancy’s point, I should make it clear that amendment 27 does not exclude union representation. There is, perhaps, a nuance to highlight here. If Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments were agreed to and a teaching union representative were required to be on the board, that representative would, in practice, be required to be a qualified educator. I do recognise that full-time union officers are sometimes not drawn from the profession that they represent.

In this case, it would be desirable and reasonable for the Parliament to say that, if we agree that the unions are able to nominate individuals to the board, those individuals must be from the profession concerned. I would not exclude union representation, although it would somewhat narrow the criteria that the union could use to nominate individuals. I will come back to that point in a second.

My amendments in this group seek to make permanent the current and recent arrangement that separates the role of chief examiner from the current chief executive of the SQA and what will be the chief executive of qualifications Scotland. I think there is value in separating those two distinct roles for a number of reasons.

Concerns have been expressed to me that, in the past, there has been a conflict of interest, where the individual who was fulfilling the single role has suggested to others in the sector that, wearing one hat, they might agree with them but, wearing the other hat, they might not. In those cases, the decision never tends to land in the way that other key stakeholders in the sector would like it to. In particular, there is value in ensuring that the chief examiner of Scotland’s qualification system is a qualified educator, but I do not think that it is necessary for the chief executive of the organisation to be, if the roles are separate.

Clearly, separate skill sets are needed for each role. To be an effective chief executive of any large organisation, and certainly any large public sector organisation, requires a particular skill set that is not exactly the same as that of a qualified educator. In recent years, one weakness in the system has been that we have had a chief examiner who has not been a qualified educator and who has not had knowledge or experience of delivering qualifications. Separating the two roles would allow greater focus on those distinct responsibilities.

Amendments 47 and 48 aim to make permanent the current arrangement, which I think works particularly well. However, I recognise that what they propose clashes with Stephen Kerr’s amendments in the group. That was not deliberate—it is simply that we were simultaneously aiming to do slightly different things. To an extent, we are trying to address the same point, which is about whether the person who is in charge of the system should have the expertise and qualifications of an educator—the intent is the same. I believe that the best way to do that is to separate the role of chief executive and chief examiner, because the person who manages the organisation does not need to be a qualified educator, but the person who manages the system should have that experience.

I am not convinced by the proposal in amendment 223 to limit the term that a chief executive may serve, but I am interested in hearing Mr Kerr’s argument for that. Broadly, there is a lot to welcome in the recent restructuring at the top of the SQA. My amendments 47 and 48 seek to make those changes permanent for the new body.

I move amendment 47.

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 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.