Official Report 1089KB pdf
The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S6M-16942, on approval of a Scottish statutory instrument. I ask the minister, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motion.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 (Treatment of Qualifications Scotland as Specified Authority) Order 2025 [draft] be approved.—[Jamie Hepburn]
I call Miles Briggs. You have up to three minutes, Mr Briggs.
17:31
During consideration of the SSI at the Education, Children and Young People Committee, it became clear that Conservative and Labour members of the committee have concerns in relation to the establishment of qualifications Scotland and the power that the instrument gives ministers to make early appointments to the new organisation’s board before Parliament has had the opportunity to deliberate on the Education (Scotland) Bill and decide what the make-up of the board should ultimately be.
As Pam Duncan-Glancy said at the committee, it is odd that we are being asked to vote on an order when we do not yet know the shape of the board that the Government will then be asked to recruit to.
Does the member agree that the Government is perhaps counting its chickens here? We have been asked to give it powers to appoint to a board that has not yet been agreed and when we do not yet know what the representation of, for example, trade unions will be on it. That has not gone through due parliamentary process, and that process is crucial to gather the sort of respect and trust that the new qualifications body will require.
I absolutely agree. With so many pieces of proposed legislation, the Scottish Government has either been incompetent, as with the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill; has dropped promised legislation, as with the proposed human rights bill and learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence bill; or has rushed bills through Parliament, and it feels like that is the case with the Education (Scotland) Bill.
Does the member agree that it is quite normal for legislation to go through at the same time as a provisional board is approved? From memory, I think that that happened with the Scottish Fiscal Commission. Does he accept that the Opposition has been pushing for changes in education but now seems to be slowing things down?
We want to get this right, which is why it is important that ministers take all members of Parliament with them on this journey. The SQA is transitioning to qualifications Scotland. I do not think that the member could stand up and tell me how many members will be on the board of that new body, because Parliament has not yet decided on that in the legislation. It should be Parliament and not the Government that decides how we progress the issue.
The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills stated—I agree with her on this point—that she does not want the Education (Scotland) Bill to be a Government bill but wants it to be a cross-party, cross-Parliament bill. However, at the first hurdle, the Government has now failed on that test. That is why, at decision time this evening, we will abstain on the SSI.
17:34
The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills is representing Scotland at the international summit on the teaching profession, along with the Educational Institute of Scotland and ministers and unions from across the United Kingdom. That is why I will respond on her behalf today.
The order’s purpose is routine, as was previously discussed at the Education, Children and Young People Committee, which supported it by a clear majority. It will ensure that qualifications Scotland is treated as a regulated body under the Public Bodies and Public Appointments etc (Scotland) Act 2003 before it is established in legislation.
The order enables ministers to begin the process of making regulated appointments to the board of qualifications Scotland, in line with the “Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies in Scotland”. The order ensures that the recruitment of members is overseen by the Ethical Standards Commissioner and guarantees that the appointments are made on merit, using methods that are fair and open.
The cabinet secretary gave a significant commitment to members across parties that she would be very open to changing the legislation, although we are yet to see whether that is the case. That would include in relation to the board’s composition, and we do not yet know what the composition is going to be. Can the minister therefore set out to the Parliament who he is going to appoint to the board, what requirements he will have for them, what background he is looking for and what the organisation’s functions will be?
I re-read the Official Report of the committee session before coming to the chamber—all 40 minutes’ worth of it—and it was quite clear that each of the members’ legitimate concerns were addressed. The fact that three non-Scottish National Party committee members felt that they were able to back the order demonstrates that to be the case.
The order will enable discussions to begin with the Ethical Standards Commissioner’s office, which will ensure that the appointments process can conclude in time for qualifications Scotland’s establishment. Given that the process cannot begin until the order has been approved and has come into force—
Will the minister give way?
Yes, I will give way.
Does the minister accept that the timetabling would work much better if we had the opportunity to get the Parliament’s view at stage 2? We could then see what the board would look like and ministers could progress the work instead of rushing it without taking the Parliament’s view on it at all, as they have done?
With respect to Mr Briggs, that reflects the fact that minds were made up and were never going to be changed, regardless of the assurances that the cabinet secretary gave. If members have nothing better to do with their time, I invite them to re-read the OR, which makes it clear that those points were answered.
I reinforce the point that the order is routine in nature. More than 15 such orders have been made since 2005 for a range of different public bodies in Scotland.
The session that the Education, Children and Young People Committee had was useful. The minister knows that committees are entitled to up to 90 minutes to discuss such things—we did not use even half of our time, so perhaps I will consider extending the debates when we have the cabinet secretary in front of us in the future.
Does the minister accept that, given that hundreds of stage 2 amendments to the bill have already been lodged, it is possible that the board that, just now, he is seeking to be able to appoint might be appointed to an organisation that does not exist at stage 3? Is that a possibility?
It is an interesting argument, given that I think that Mr Ross and the rest of the committee voted for the bill’s principles.
If significant amendments were made.
I acknowledge the potential for significant amendment, but nevertheless committee members supported the bill’s principles.
To answer the specific point about the order of the process, any amendments that are agreed to in regard to qualifications Scotland’s governance arrangements can and will be fully incorporated into the process. Furthermore, the person specification and subsequent advertisements will not be finalised until after the bill has completed stage 2, which will allow any changes to be made. There is no counting of chickens here.
I emphasise that, if the order is not approved, it will not be possible to start making regulated appointments to qualifications Scotland’s board in time for its establishment in autumn 2025, which will have consequences. It is surely in the interests of Scotland’s pupils and teachers that members of the Parliament work together to ensure that the new body is operational and in place to oversee the 2026 examination diet. I ask Parliament to support the order.
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.
The next item of business is consideration of four Parliamentary Bureau motions. I ask Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move motions S6M-16943 and S6M-16944, on approval of SSIs, and motions S6M-16945 and S6M-16946, on designation of lead committees.
Motions moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (Part 2 Further Extension) Order 2025 [draft] be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the Budget (Scotland) Act 2024 Amendment Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee be designated as the lead committee in consideration of the legislative consent memorandum relating to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (UK Legislation).
That the Parliament agrees that the Education, Children and Young People Committee be designated as the lead committee in consideration of the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.—[Jamie Hepburn].
The question on the motions will be put at decision time.
Air ais
Business MotionAir adhart
Decision Time