Official Report 931KB pdf
Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (Modification) Regulations 2025 (SSI 2025/44)
Good morning, and welcome to the ninth meeting in 2025 of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. We have received apologies from Jackie Dunbar, and we welcome back Clare Haughey, who is substituting for her.
Our first agenda item is consideration of a Scottish statutory instrument that is subject to the negative procedure—SSI 2025/44. Do members have any comments to make on the instrument?
Members indicated disagreement.
There being no comments, does the committee agree that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instrument?
Members indicated agreement.
Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003 (Treatment of Qualifications Scotland as Specified Authority) Order 2025 [Draft]
Our next agenda item is consideration of an item of subordinate legislation that is subject to the affirmative procedure—the draft Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003 (Treatment of Qualifications Scotland as Specified Authority) Order 2025. The committee will take evidence on the draft order, which relates to the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003, from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and her officials. The minister will also move the motion that the instrument be approved.
I welcome Jenny Gilruth, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills; Clare Hicks, director of education reform; and Nico McKenzie-Juetten, who is a lawyer in the Scottish Government legal directorate. I understand that the cabinet secretary wants to speak to the draft order.
Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to discuss the draft Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003 (Treatment of Qualifications Scotland as Specified Authority) Order 2025.
If the order is approved, it will allow ministers to make early appointments to the board of qualifications Scotland, which is an essential step in ensuring that the new qualifications body has a fully functioning board in time for its establishment in autumn this year and delivery of the 2026 exam diet.
I take the opportunity to put on record my thanks to Fiona Robertson for her leadership of the Scottish Qualifications Authority and for her many years of service to education. The SQA has now put in place interim arrangements to ensure continued delivery, and preparations for a full, fair and open process to appoint the SQA chief executive are well under way.
Back in November last year, as the chair of the SQA mentioned in her recent evidence to the committee, changes were made to the SQA’s board to ensure that it would be better able to support the establishment of qualifications Scotland. At that time, five appointments were made, including the appointment of members with experience of teaching in schools and colleges. Those appointments are already supporting the establishment of qualifications Scotland and—which is important—the work to support the organisation to transform how it engages and operates across the education and skills system.
Subject to the agreement of the Parliament, the Education (Scotland) Bill will ensure that the SQA chair is able to transfer to become the chair of qualifications Scotland. It will also enable a number of members of the SQA board to transfer. Those arrangements are critical in providing a smooth transition to the new body and supporting the implementation of the new membership model, as required by the Education (Scotland) Bill.
The revised model for board membership and new governance and accountability mechanisms will provide a more robust platform for delivery, which will ensure that the organisation’s decisions are more directly shaped by the views and experiences of teachers, college practitioners and pupils alike.
To build on the measures that are set out in the bill, the Scottish Government has also provided funding to the SQA for secondment of a secondary school headteacher, who will act as an adviser to the organisation and lead a new dedicated schools unit. That senior role will support the organisation to ensure that it is able to rebuild trust and confidence with Scotland’s teachers. I am pleased to say that the SQA will announce the successful candidate early next week.
As we move towards the establishment of qualifications Scotland, it is crucial that our qualifications body is able, now and in the future, to demonstrate leadership that inspires trust, confidence and transparency.
In order to begin the process of appointing new board members, I commend the order to the committee. I am happy to answer questions.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. We move to questions and comments from members, and I will begin.
The Scottish Government’s policy note on the proposal states that
“This is to ensure continuity of leadership”
as we move from what we have at the moment to qualifications Scotland. Given what the SQA has gone through in recent months and years, do you think that continuity of leadership is a good thing?
You are speaking about the draft order, and I reflect that there have been changes in leadership roles in recent times. That has been reflected in the evidence that the committee has heard. I also reflect on the fact that we have a new chair in the form of Shirley Rogers. Shirley Rogers has been leading some transformational—
The new chair has been in post for more than a year now.
She is relatively new to the organisation, convener.
She was appointed in December 2023, I think.
That is correct. She has been leading on a number of changes, which the committee has been broadly supportive of, in relation to getting the organisation ready for the change to qualifications Scotland. Although there will be some continuity in the move across to qualifications Scotland, there are still some relatively fresh appointments. I spoke to the members who joined the board just before Christmas—five appointments were made at that time.
Although there is continuity, the body needs to operate, and the order is needed to give it the powers to do so and to fulfil functions in relation to the 2026 exam diet.
In its stage 1 report on the Education (Scotland) Bill, the committee was very critical of what you have introduced as the cabinet secretary in the Government. We stated that the bill would require to be heavily amended. I think that that was the precise wording that the committee unanimously agreed to. Is it right to lay the order now, when the committee—and the Parliament—expect a considerable number of amendments to the bill that will, if it is passed, bring in qualifications Scotland?
The alternative would be for the Government to sit still, which I am not sure is acceptable to Scotland’s parents, teachers and young people. We must reflect on the real urgency for reform of our qualifications body, which has been expressed by stakeholders and by the committee. The committee backed the general principles of the bill at stage 1, which is important.
That was if the bill was heavily amended. You accepted that in the debate that we had in the chamber.
Absolutely, convener.
Do you accept that what was agreed to at stage 1 will not be what the Parliament will ultimately pass, because you have accepted the deficiencies in the bill and the fact that it needs to be heavily amended? Therefore, I wonder whether we are a bit premature with your proposals today.
Those are your words, convener, not mine. I would not necessarily accept that there are “deficiencies in the bill” as currently drafted.
You did accept that the bill needs to be heavily amended.
I have accepted that the Government will, in a Parliament of minorities, always have to work on a cross-party basis.
Do you not accept that the bill that you presented at stage 1 was deficient in a number of areas, which is why the committee unanimously agreed that it will have to be heavily amended?
I am somewhat confused by your line of questioning.
I am just asking you, quite simply—
I have to ask this in response. The committee backed the principles of the bill at stage 1. Is that a position that you do not now support?
I support the principles if the bill is heavily amended.
I have accepted that, as I did in the chamber.
So you do not think that there is anything wrong with the bill as you presented it, but you accept that it needs to be heavily amended.
I have accepted that there are areas in which the Government will willingly work on a cross-party basis to strengthen some of the key provisions, but there is an on-going need to reform our qualifications body. As I said, standing still on the issue is not acceptable to Scotland’s teachers, our children and young people, or parents and carers.
It is vitally important that the legislation moves forward so that we can deliver on that ask from the country in relation to how we deliver qualifications, especially post-pandemic.
My question was about the timing of the instrument that is in front of the committee today. Given that I think that you are accepting that the bill will have to be heavily amended—whether you believe that that is because the bill is not good enough or because, in a Parliament of minorities, you will have to accept that—and given that there will be changes to the bill before it is passed at stage 3, if it is successful, why is the order coming forward now? I know that there is precedent for taking things forward after stage 1, but has that been the case where there has been so much criticism of a bill at stage 1?
To reflect the real ask here—to give you that reassurance—the appointments process will have to take account of any amendments that are agreed to at stages 2 and 3.
What if the legislation is not, ultimately, passed?
Do you mean if the draft order does not pass today?
No—I mean the bill, at stage 3.
That is a matter that the Parliament will have to respond to.
What will happen with the order if it has been passed but the bill does not pass?
I will defer to Nico on that.
I think that the order will not do very much. The order is about allowing appointments that are made early to qualifications Scotland to be regulated appointments, in order to increase transparency and accountability. If there is no body to which to make the appointments, that becomes irrelevant, essentially.
The appointments will have been made to a body that does not exist.
I do not see that being a realistic possibility at stage 3. An appointment process takes around six months.
We are being asked to start the process now to have things in place for day 1 if the Education (Scotland) Bill is passed. If the bill does not pass—given that legitimate concerns have been raised at stage 1 and we do not know what amendments will or will not be accepted at stage 2, or what the ultimate outcome will be at stage 3—I am querying what would happen if appointments have been made to a body that does not exist.
The appointments would not be made by stage 3. Preparation requires a number of months. Even given agreement today to the motion on the order, the appointments would not be made for six months. There would therefore be an opportunity to pull that around—
The order would have to be withdrawn—is that correct?
It would have been passed by that point, assuming that the committee and the Parliament support it, so the order could not be withdrawn, as such, but it could be revoked if it no longer serves any purpose.
I am sorry—what was that?
If the order is supported by the Parliament, it will be the law. The law can be changed—it an be repealed or revoked,. If the order no longer serves any purpose, that would be done—essentially, just by way of hygiene on the statute book.
But people will have gone through a process at that point.
It is fairly—
Sorry—is that wrong, Ms Hicks?
The process would have started. When it comes to the timeline to appointment, we would probably have started the recruitment advertising process, but people would not have been appointed by stage 3.
However, that process will have started. People will be engaged in that process although, ultimately, the body to which they would be appointed might not be approved by the Parliament.
Yes.
Cabinet secretary, are you comfortable with that, because you believe that the time constraints do not allow for any alternative?
I am comfortable, convener, because, if I do not move now, we will not have an operational board to fulfil the functions of the new body. There is a requirement on me, on which I have been advised by my officials, to move forward on that—to have the board ready to operate.
It is worth saying that, if the motion on the order is not agreed to today, it will not be possible to start making regulated board appointments to qualifications Scotland before its establishment. It is hugely important that that body has a working board that is ready from day 1 to undertake the work that we expect it to do.
This exchange is extraordinary. It is really odd that we are being asked to vote on the order when we do not yet know the shape of the board that the Government will be asked to recruit to, because stage 2 could bring many amendments that would add other people.
I have many questions. My first is on the recruitment. Should the motion on the order be agreed to today, does the cabinet secretary consider that she will, for example, appoint to the board a member of a trade union?
Such matters will be discussed in relation to the amendments that are lodged. As I have made clear to the convener, we will look to engage with committee members across the Parliament on that basis.
However, when it comes to the process that you are asking us to agree to today, you do not know who you will recruit, to what particular board function you will recruit them, or how many people you will recruit. Or, do you know any of those things?
We do, because that was specified at stage 1. The member has a view in relation to trade union membership—
I am sorry, cabinet secretary, but the Government has said, and the committee has made it very clear, that the bill needs to change, including when it comes to membership of the board of Education Scotland.
It is not about Education Scotland.
I am sorry—I mean the board of qualifications Scotland. You are right. I misspoke. You do not yet know how many board members you will need to recruit through the process, because that could change at stage 2.
It could change at stage 2; however, if we do not start the process now, we will have to lead an alternative appointments process, and I have been advised that that would be truncated, far less robust and more open to challenge.
How so?
That is the advice that I, as cabinet secretary, have been provided with. I am happy to bring in officials on that point, but when it comes to public appointments, there are certain requirements and duties that ministers have to fulfil. Those things take time. We have to move forward to ensure that there is an operational board, but I do not detract from your points on, for example, trade union membership of the board. I have been open to engaging on that issue. Currently, as the bill has been drafted, there is no such provision, but Pam Duncan-Glancy is well aware that I have made it clear that I will work with committee members on a range of issues that they might have, in that regard.
09:45My other point is that recruitment takes time. As you heard from Clare Hicks, it can take many months. I will be in front of the committee two weeks after recess, but to provide some reassurance to members, we could write to the committee on the timescales that are associated with public advertising of vacancies and ensure that the Government reflects on the committee’s asks in relation to amendments to be agreed at stage 2.
I accept that the recruitment process takes time—officials indicated that it would take six months. However, surely it should be six months from the point that the bill, which includes the detail of the board that you are recruiting to, is passed, as opposed to six months from now?
Is it the case that the Government is trying to do that process now, because if we wait until the bill passes, it could go beyond the timescales that people expect? If so, that is not the committee’s fault—it is the Government’s fault for not sorting itself out on the bill earlier. We are being asked to vote on something that we do not have details for, purely to meet a deadline that the Government wants to meet because it has dragged its heels to this stage in order to abolish the SQA.
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.
No one wants it to be delayed.
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.
You are asking us to do that in relation to a bill in which substantial amendments are required to the construction of the board that you want to pass a regulation on. It just does not feel right, cabinet secretary.
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.
Can you give assurances that, if the order is passed today, any changes that are made to the board’s composition at stage 2—such as including trade union representatives and others—will be reflected in the process; that the timescale of six months that you are committing to will not be delayed as a result; and that the Government will not say that it cannot accept such amendments at stage 2 because the order has already passed?
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.
I have one final question. The convener read out the policy note that we have received today, which says:
“This is to ensure continuity of leadership from appointments made during the transitional period.”
Members and others will know about my concern in respect of leadership continuity, and the convener has reiterated that concern. How long is the transitional period, and when could we expect to have a fresh board in place?
In my opening remarks I spoke about a number of board appointments—five were made late last year. I referred to Ms Rogers as the new chair, but I accept the convener’s point that she was appointed in December 2023 and so is perhaps not so “new” any more. Fresh leadership was brought in at that time, and we will look at further appointments as part of the upcoming recruitment process.
Is it the Government’s view that the people who have recently been appointed will transition to the new board?
Along with the chair, the five people who were appointed in November will transition.
How long do you expect them to be in place before the recruitment process is repeated and people get an opportunity to refresh the board membership of qualifications Scotland, should it be set up?
I think that some of the appointments are time limited. I will bring in Clare on those points.
Yes. This is an opportunity not to take a big-bang approach. The point of continuity is that some members will continue to provide oversight. We refresh public appointments as we go. That is the point of the order. Good governance will continue: the public body will have appropriate members in place. The normal appointment period for board members is three years, but that is subject to review. It is done on a rolling basis to allow bodies to continue to function and have continuing leadership in place.
Cabinet secretary, I am more confused after your answers than I was before. You have said that you are willing to amend things, depending on the results of amendments to the bill at stages 2 and 3, so the process, and the cohort of people going into the board, could be fundamentally different after stage 2 or stage 3. What is being done between now, 12 March, and stage 2 at the beginning of April that cannot wait until after stage 2, when you would know what amendments have been lodged by committee members and others and voted on by the committee? What will happen between 12 March and the stage 2 committee meetings on 23 and 30 April, after the recess? Any process that could be gone through in that period might be ripped up if, things change at stage 2, so why go ahead with this today?
I might defer to Clare Hicks, but my understanding is that there would be a substantial delay to the appointment process if that were to happen. I am happy to bring my officials in on that.
We will bring in Ms Hicks, but I presume that you will have made some assumptions about that because you do not know what is going to happen regarding the order today or what will happen at stage 2. What contingency plans have you, as cabinet secretary, and the Government prepared?
The usual process for a public appointments round is that there must be engagement with the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland to ensure that there is clarity about the field that you are trying to recruit to. That would include meetings to set that out with policy officials, the commissioner and the chair of the current body. We would look at deficiencies within the current board and areas where we might need to grow skills.
None of that can happen until after stage 2. What did you say about the field of candidates? That field has the potential to be very different if Pam Duncan-Glancy gets an amendment passed about including trade unions on the board. That could not happen until after stage 2.
Regarding specificity, you are absolutely right, but there is a wider question about the composition of boards that support public bodies in any way. The initial scoping conversations can take place, then there will be an opportunity to reflect, as the cabinet secretary said, in the light of stage 2 and stage 3 amendments.
Do you need an SSI in order to have those conversations?
We do, in order for us to be assured that we can start the process.
Is that a legal requirement? Cannot you just have a conversation with the chair of the SQA or with the Ethical Standards Commissioner?
Conversations can happen, but there is investment of the Ethical Standards Commissioner’s time to support that, so they would want an assurance that we were involving them in something that had the support of the minister and of the Parliament.
Surely that would come after stage 2. The assurance that you have just spoken about can only be given after stage 2.
Yes—and, as the cabinet secretary said, the opportunity to amend the bill and to reflect on stage 2 and 3 amendments is absolutely built into the process. The committee can be assured of that.
I am genuinely not sure why you need the instrument today or what you are going to do before stage 2 that you might have to rip up if things change at that stage.
It is about being able to provide assurance to the current chair that the process has started and that they will not be in a position, on day 1 in November—
You cannot provide that assurance. You simply cannot do that and neither can the cabinet secretary or the Government, because we have been tasked by the Parliament with scrutinising the bill and making amendments that will not be considered or voted on until April. I therefore find it very difficult to see why and how we can support the instrument today, given the acceptance that I think we have had from the cabinet secretary and from you as officials that things could change significantly at stages 2 and 3.
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.
That is my point, though, cabinet secretary. That delay could still happen, depending on the amendments that we will debate and vote on at stage 2. What are your contingency plans if that should happen? I presume that you have planned for that. Given that you will have contingency plans in place—which will be based on respecting the committee’s views at stage 2—and you could detail those to the committee now, surely we should not vote on the order today.
I will come in briefly to stress that this is an ordinary part of the process of setting up a new non-departmental public body. This is normally done at this point. In the past, it has usually been done earlier in the process, which would have been sooner after the stage 1 debate. There have been 17 such orders since 2005.
In fairness, I did allude to that earlier. My point—
And this—
I am sorry, cabinet secretary. My question is whether any of those orders were on pieces of legislation that the committee’s stage 1 report said would have to be heavily amended. That is the difference here.
I did not see in the stage 1 report any expression of doubt about whether qualifications Scotland would be a non-departmental public body, which needs board members who will require the usual skills that are needed for the corporate management of an NDPB, such as finance and strategy management.
They would usually come from a wide range of organisations and backgrounds. Cabinet secretary, do you want to come back in?
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.
It is also a real inherent risk that the Government will be aware of. I have already asked a couple of times what the Government’s contingency plan is if the draft order is not passed today because of members’ concerns—not their views on the bill itself or on qualifications Scotland, but their concerns about not being able to influence the bill before stage 2.
We would have to reflect on that, and I would have to take advice on an alternative recruitment process.
Good morning, cabinet secretary and officials.
We need to put on record that we are working to the Government’s timetable and that it has been the Government’s decision to leave the bill until the end of this parliamentary session. The committee does not have a choice in that regard. However, I would have liked to have seen the bill being considered much earlier in the session, and I think that every other member would probably agree with me on that.
I return to the convener’s point. I expect various amendments on the board to be lodged. The bill will establish a board, which other people will potentially join as a result of those amendments. Will you not need to come back to the committee after stage 3 with that anyway? Does that not present an opportunity for the Government to lay orders on what will be a reformed board? Given everything that you have outlined, would delaying the order until stage 2 not be more sensible, because by then we will have a clearer view of the political consensus on what the board structure would look like? As the convener has outlined, we are talking about a matter of weeks.
Nico, do you want to come in on the first point?
I have one further remark about what the order would do. Its net effect would be to bring forward the benefits of qualifications Scotland being a specified authority for the purposes of the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003. Ministerial appointments would be regulated by the Ethical Standards Commissioner and subject to the code of practice that is issued by and enforced by that commissioner. That is the order’s key benefit. The alternative, in a different scenario, which we have not pursued, would be to consider making unregulated appointments for the first round of recruitment to the board. That would be quite undesirable from the perspective of transparency and propriety. I want to bring us back to what the effect of the order will be and away from some of the other scenarios that we have discussed.
10:00
I do not have anything further to add to Nico McKenzie-Juetten’s comments on that aspect.
I heard what Miles Briggs asked about stage 3—Pam Duncan-Glancy made that point earlier. I go back to Clare Hicks’s point that we would not seek to begin the recruitment round until we had certainty on any such amendments, because we would not be able to make appointments to a board without listening to the Parliament in relation to the amendments that the Government will accept. We have to reflect that in the recruitment process, but my concern as cabinet secretary is that if we sit still—this is predicated on the advice that my officials have given me—we risk not having board appointments in place for the new operational qualifications Scotland. I do not think that that will be credible to Scotland’s teachers or to pupils and their parents. It is therefore imperative that we have the board appointments in place.
You say that the Government wants to work on a cross-party basis. Do you accept that the order makes members of the committee feel that the Government is putting the cart before the horse, and that it is disrespectful of the committee’s upcoming work?
I listened to the chair of the SQA impress upon us that this was an opportunity to get things right. However, it feels like the Government has its own agenda and has decided what it will do. It has already been said in the press that the replacement of the SQA with qualifications Scotland is only a nameplate change. We need significantly more than that. I hope that the cabinet secretary understands members’ concerns that they feel that the Government has decided what it wants to do already, before we have even got to the amendment stage, and that it is trying to railroad the legislation through the Parliament.
I do not accept the assertion that Mr Briggs made in his final point. Of course, purely on the basis of the numbers, in a Parliament of minorities, the Government must listen to the views of Opposition parties. However, I want to have cross-party support for the bill, because that will strengthen the way in which our qualifications offer works. I have met Mr Briggs privately and I have met other members of the committee to talk about their interests in relation to amendments. I am very keen to deliver on that.
Again, I go back to the inherent risk of our not agreeing the order today, which would in essence mean a delay to the board appointment process. That concerns me, because the legislation is key to delivering all that the Parliament has asked the Government to deliver on on education reform. We can sit still if that is the committee’s view as to what we should do, but it will delay the process and there is inherent risk in that approach. It is, of course, a matter for the committee to decide on.
I have to say that I am surprised by some of the lines of questioning so far, given that the committee is very keen that we see a big change and quickly. Presumably, even if the membership of the board is tweaked at stage 2, we would still need a core board and a chair. That will not change; the Educational Institute of Scotland will not take over the whole board like it wants to. Therefore, surely we can move ahead.
I have been trying to think of other examples to show that this process whereby legislation goes through the Parliament and the Government moves ahead in the meantime and appoints people on an interim basis is quite normal. The example that I thought of is the Scottish Fiscal Commission. I was on the Finance Committee when the legislation to establish the commission was going through the Parliament, and I think that people were in post before it passed.
Whatever the committee anticipates for the Education (Scotland) Bill—there might be major amendments and there might not be—we were in the same position when we legislated for the Fiscal Commission. As I said, I am surprised. I do not know whether the cabinet secretary is. It is quite normal for such things to go ahead in parallel.
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 mentioned a moment ago, and you have just repeated it, cabinet secretary, that this is a routine process and the alternative would be a truncated process. You do not have cross-Government responsibility for board appointments, but are you aware of any situations in which the truncated process has been followed? If this is the norm and we are just following the regular process, are you aware of any examples where that has not been done and the truncated process has had to be followed?
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.
That would be one scenario.
I cannot recall a situation in which unregulated appointments have been made, but maybe I am just not aware of it. Is anyone aware of unregulated appointments being made because an order has been laid at a later point rather than at this stage in the process?
I am not, but I will defer to Clare Hicks and Nico.
No examples come to mind.
This is absolutely the norm for this process.
Yes.
As I said, it has been done on many occasions over many years.
The purpose of the order is transition. We can assume that at least some of the SQA board members will transition to the new board. I am conscious that, in the intervening period, members of the current SQA board might step down or decide to step away from the organisation. Would you have any concerns that, without clarity on the process, we could end up with vacancies on the SQA board that would be harder to fill because people would be reluctant to step forward, because they are unsure about the status of their position on the board as it transitions to the new organisation and, I imagine, they would not want to end up in an unregulated appointment?
You are speaking hypothetically, Mr Greer, but I share your anxiety in that regard. We would not be able to give board members certainty about their role during the transitional period in which the SQA finds itself in as the bill makes its way through the Parliament.
As the discussion has continued, I have realised that, as well as the composition of the board, some of the amendments that might come at stage 2 could be about splitting the functions of the organisation for which you are seeking to create a board. If the functions were split—for example, if the accreditation function was taken out of qualifications Scotland—would you be recruiting to an organisation that is very different to the one that the order allows? Would you be recruiting for a position that exists? Would you be recruiting for a job that does not exist? It does not make much sense to me.
That sits with the line of questioning that Ms Duncan-Glancy pursued earlier. The Government will have to reflect and respond appropriately to the amendments on the recruitment process. If the committee chooses not to pass the order, which is in the committee’s gift, it will simply delay that process and risk some of the appointments becoming unregulated, which speaks to Mr Greer’s point.
On accreditation specifically, I remind the member that only 20 staff are employed in the SQA accreditation team, so if there is a suggestion about different board composition for accreditation, we need to be mindful of the number of staff in the part of the organisation that we are talking about. The Government will have to reflect on the amendments that are agreed to at stages 2 and 3. I have given the committee a reassurance today that I will do that. I have to do that, but I also want to do that as cabinet secretary, because it will provide for a stronger piece of legislation that will have more political goodwill around it, and it will deliver the outcomes that we want to see for our young people.
I get that. On the point about political goodwill, the cabinet secretary must be aware of concerns about the current board and the transfer of staff. Being asked to do this at this stage just feels a bit uncomfortable.
I take the point about delay, but I do not think that the committee can be blamed for the Government’s timescales on the bill.
I am at a loss as to how the committee can support the general principles of the bill at stage 1 and then not seek to work with the Government on amendments. In fact, I think that I have met most of the members who are at the table today and there is a political willingness from most parties to work with the Government on improving the bill to get it to where it needs to be, and I accept that.
Fundamentally, however, if the member’s line of questioning was accurate, I would have expected the committee to reject what the Government was proposing out of hand at stage 1. I think that there is a consensus in the room that we need to replace the SQA. I think there is also an expectation from the public that we deliver on that—but how we do that is in the gift of the Parliament. The order before you is a matter for the committee.
Good morning. I should say that I am quite new to the committee, and I am not that keen on being lumped in if statements are made along the lines of, “The committee believes this,” when I have not had a chance to take evidence and make up my mind in relation to the matter. I find the questioning bizarre. I will make a series of observations, and then perhaps you can tell me if any of them are wrong, cabinet secretary.
From the public’s point of view, the situation will be very hard to understand, unless you are an adherent of the idea of the multiverse, where there is an infinite number of universes that you should plan contingencies for. It might make sense in that regard. It seems that you are doing a straightforward thing of ensuring that appointments to a public body—the principle of which was agreed at stage 1 of the Education (Scotland) Bill, I think—are done in an ethical way and are overseen by the relevant regulatory bodies, which is very important in public appointments. That is not something that most people would object to; they will probably be surprised at some of the questioning around it.
The Government has been accused of having an agenda and a direction. I would certainly hope that the Government has an agenda and a direction. Perhaps it is because there are other agendas that we are hearing some of the questioning. What is being done seems to be eminently sensible and not unusual.
On the idea that something might happen at stage 2, I would say that this committee does not make legislation; it is part of the legislative process. It is the Parliament that decides on these things. Of course the Government will have to listen to that.
It seems to be eminently sensible to make provisions now so that you do not lose time. I do not know why anybody would not want to support the proposal; it is very odd to me. The convener seems to be suggesting that the committee might not want to support it, but I would certainly want to support it. I am happy to—
Mr Brown, I have to—
I am happy to—
Mr Brown.
I know you interrupt people all the time, convener.
Mr Brown.
Could you not interrupt me when I am asking my question?
Can we—
You interrupt everybody else all the time.
Excuse me—Mr Brown.
Could I ask my question, please?
Can we switch off Mr Brown’s microphone?
Mr Brown, I was just going to clarify that, at no point—
I do not need clarification; I am fine with—
Mr Brown.
I do not need your clarification.
Mr Brown, I will suspend the meeting if you cannot control yourself. [Interruption.] Mr Brown, are you challenging the chair? [Interruption.] Mr Brown, I am trying to clarify the point. [Interruption.] You have suggested that the convener was saying something on behalf of the committee. Like you, I am a member of the committee, in which I can ask the cabinet secretary questions and get responses. We have a decision to make on the order, which the committee will take. I cannot influence that in any way. We will either agree or disagree on the motion that the cabinet secretary will shortly be invited to move. That is all that is happening at the moment, and we are scrutinising the proposal.
You cannot, in all fairness, say that I am suggesting something when there is a process that is laid out in front of me that we will go through to allow all members to ask their questions and have them answered, and then make a determination on the order in front of us. If you can continue on those grounds, I am happy to go back to you, Mr Brown.
I will continue on the grounds that I intended to go on. I know that you interrupt witnesses at every opportunity, not allowing them to answer, but interrupting committee members when they are asking a question is overstepping the mark. Can you allow me to ask a question without interrupting again?
Mr Brown, I was clarifying that you were suggesting that I had made a comment about the committee that is just not true. Please ask your questions, rather than making statements that are factually incorrect.
Are we not allowed to make statements when we ask questions?
Yes, you are—just not ones that are factually incorrect.
What statement have I made that is factually incorrect?
I was simply interjecting when you said that the convener was instructing the committee. I have no ability to do that.
I never said that you instructed the committee. I never said that.
You were making a very clear statement about me as—
I never said that. You have just made a false statement, convener.
You were making a very clear statement—
This is what happens when you interrupt people in the normal course of the committee’s business.
—about me as convener. I am trying to conduct this in such a way that everyone gets an opportunity to speak. This is your opportunity, Mr Brown, in posing questions to the cabinet secretary and her officials, which she will seek to answer.
You can see what we have to deal with in this committee, cabinet secretary.
The rationale that I was trying to develop is that, to an impartial observer, the proposal before us seems, I imagine, an eminently sensible thing to do, although they might not be fully aware of the strictures of making appointments in an ethical way, which takes time. If we agree to the order today, or if we do not make representations on it, there is nothing that means any amendments to the Education (Scotland) Bill might be lost or cannot be carried. The committee has the right to come up with whatever amendments it wants, and the Parliament has the right to decide on them.
Today, the Government is simply going through a sensible process. Do you agree that, if the Government were to not go through the regulated appointments process, it would be pilloried for not proceeding in the correct way?
10:15
I very much agree with Mr Brown’s sentiments, particularly in relation to the ethical processes that are required to be adhered to. That relates back to Mr Greer’s point about the running of a truncated approach to recruitment, which might not lead to some of the positions being regulated. I imagine that that would lead to the Government being pilloried and challenged, as Mr Brown suggested, because we had not followed due process. I agree with the sentiments behind Mr Brown’s question.
Is it possible—I will let you answer fully without interrupting—that you could say one or two things about the strictures that you are observing in relation to ethical appointments? What is the rationale for your doing so? There seems to be a gap in the committee’s knowledge of what the requirements are in relation to ethical appointments.
I will bring in Clare Hicks to talk about the Ethical Standards Commissioner’s role in the process. Important decisions need to be taken about how we advertise and how the process is conducted. There are risks inherent in our not adhering to the ethical appointments process.
People who are a few steps away from the appointments process might not realise the in-depth nature of it with regard to assessing fairness, transparency and openness. The goal is for the recruitment to be open to as many people as possible so that it reflects the types of people who should be members of our public boards and so on. There is a desire to open up that process and ensure that it is as fair as possible.
There can be quite a degree of outreach to ensure that we are as open and transparent as we can be in relation to the appointments. In-depth assessment of the skills that the board is looking for and where those might be located is required to ensure that we do not look only to a small pool of candidates. We are trying to reflect the variety and breadth of skills in Scotland that are required for the board appointments, given the particular skills that are required.
It is hard to see why any member would not want the appointments process to be carried out in that way.
Thank you for your answers.
Cabinet secretary, you agreed to write to the committee to update us on what would happen as regards the process if changes were required later on.
I would also like to write to you to give you more certainty in relation to timescales, public advertising of the recruitment process and how that will be aligned with the timescales that are associated with stages 2 and 3 of the Education (Scotland) Bill. I want to do that to reassure the committee that the Government will listen—we will have to listen—to any decisions that might affect the order.
As no other committee members wish to comment and the minister has nothing further to add, we will move on to agenda item 3. I invite the cabinet secretary to move motion S6M-16297.
Motion moved,
That the Education, Children and Young People Committee recommends that the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 (Treatment of Qualifications Scotland as Specified Authority) Order 2025 [draft] be approved.—[Jenny Gilruth]
Do members have any comments to make?
Given that I have called for years for the SQA board to be reformed, I want to quickly put on the record my thanks to the current chair of the SQA. I think that it is a significant improvement that we have moved away from a situation in which, just over a year ago, there was only one teacher on the board of our national qualifications authority and three management consultants. Although expertise in management is important, the balance was not right. The recent appointment of qualified teachers and lecturers is already improving the organisation.
Do you wish to respond, cabinet secretary? You have made similar comments.
I have made similar comments—as a former teacher—and I have reflected on the need for us to have teachers inherently at the heart of decision making in the new qualifications body.
I also have a point to make that does not relate to the board appointments that we are considering today. I think that the role of a seconded headteacher in coming directly from a school to lead the schools unit in the new qualifications body will be a real strength from the point of view of Scotland’s schools and our teachers.
The question is, that motion S6M-16297, in the name of Jenny Gilruth, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Abstentions
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 0, Abstentions 3.
Motion agreed to,
That the Education, Children and Young People Committee recommends that the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 (Treatment of Qualifications Scotland as Specified Authority) Order 2025 [draft] be approved.
The committee must now produce a report on the order. Is the committee content to delegate responsibility to me, as convener, to agree the report on behalf of the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes our consideration of the SSI. I offer my thanks to the cabinet secretary and her officials.
10:21 Meeting suspended.Air ais
Attendance