Seòmar agus comataidhean

I welcome the Government’s support and understanding of the arguments that we have made today. I will move amendment 233 on that basis.

Amendment 232, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 233 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Section 7—Duties when exercising functions

Yes.

On the basis that the cabinet secretary has suggested that we work together at stage 3, I will not move the amendment.

Amendments 282 and 132 not moved.

Amendments 35 and 71 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

Section 15—Annual report of Qualifications Scotland

I think that we can all agree that this is a pretty defining moment in the work to reform Scotland’s education system. It is important that the committee and the Parliament approach all the decisions that we take about it very seriously. We have had much discussion on the amendments to the bill that explored how we can bring clarity and coherence to the system and create a system that is not driven by assessment and, instead, is driven by the curriculum and by what learners and employers need in the future.

My amendments in the group seek to address that point. As it stands, the bill fails to grasp what was said by the OECD, Professor Graham Donaldson, Professor Mark Priestley, Professor Kenneth Muir, the international council of education advisers and, most importantly, all Scotland’s teachers, which is that it is absolutely crucial that we do more to ensure that the curriculum and assessment functions work in a more suitable way for learners in Scotland. We were promised that the bill would do that sort of reform, but it was silent; Education Scotland’s functions are only being brought into the bill through amendment.

The amendments are not about adding complexity; they are about removing duplication, confusion and contradiction by creating a dedicated body to lead on the curriculum, as the stage 1 report and many experts have called for. This would be a coherent system that would ensure that the curriculum drives qualifications and not the other way around.

I thank the cabinet secretary for her engagement with the amendments in this group, and in particular for the offer to work on some of them at stage 3. I will come to that as I go through my amendments.

The amendments in this section are very important. Suffice it to say that all the amendments to the bill are important, but these are about giving a voice on the board of an organisation not just so that we can guarantee that it has expertise on it, but so that we can get trust back into the centre of our qualifications structure.

Important decisions about the membership of qualifications Scotland need to be taken, with a variety of different interests at heart, and the amendments in my name in this group try to make sure that that happens. We have seen what happens when we do not have that; we can have a disconnected education and skills system if we do not have representatives who recognise what is needed for future skills as well as what is needed for school qualifications.

It is important that we have trade union representation—I intervened on the cabinet secretary earlier in that respect. It is crucial that we recognise the role of trade unions. This committee has spent a considerable time arguing for the trade unions of colleges to be represented on boards, and that has to extend to qualifications Scotland, too. I do not think that some of the amendments that the cabinet secretary has lodged do quite what I am trying to do, which is to give a direct voice to staff on boards. If qualifications are to be really meaningful, we have to ensure that they are relevant to the real world, too, and I have also lodged some amendments in relation to that.

My amendments 211 and 212 increase the size of qualifications Scotland’s board to between 10 and 12 people, which is really important. The amendments are direct alternatives to the cabinet secretary’s amendments 41 and 42; the cabinet secretary is looking to increase the number on the board to between 7 and 11, but my amendment creates a board of between 10 and 12, which is necessary to accommodate the broader representation that I have suggested in my amendments 216 and 218. By increasing the size of the board, I am ensuring that staff, education unions and industry leaders can contribute to the governance of qualifications Scotland without sacrificing expertise or limiting the diversity of the boards. A board of that size will ensure that the qualifications Scotland governance model is participative and responsive, and I am pleased that the cabinet secretary is prepared to support the proposal.

I am not sure that amendment 27, in Ross Greer’s name, is strong enough to guarantee any trade union representation on the boards; it also appears to—unintentionally, I imagine—exclude representatives of teachers and college staff. I believe that the amendments in my name provide a more balanced offer and give voice to teachers and staff in schools and colleges. I would be willing to work with the cabinet secretary and Ross Greer at stage 3 to find alternatives, if both were prepared to do so. I have been trying to keep on top of the numbers of the amendments that the cabinet secretary spoke to—I think that I heard her say that she would be prepared to consider the matter at stage 3, and I am hoping that Ross Greer might, too.

Amendment 213 requires Scottish ministers to consult the whole board of qualifications Scotland when making regulations. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary supports that, because it is really important. I take the cabinet secretary’s point that a chair would consult their board in ordinary circumstances—indeed, I am quite sure that they would—but we have seen some less than acceptable circumstances in the sphere that we are discussing, and anything that we can do to protect against such circumstances will be important. That is why amendment 213, in my name, has been lodged.

Amendment 214 requires one member of qualifications Scotland to undertake a qualifications Scotland qualification, replacing the requirement for a member to

“appear to have knowledge of the interests of persons undertaking a relevant qualification.”

I understand the point that the cabinet secretary has made and the amendment that Ross Greer has lodged on the matter. I think that this is really important, because people who are undertaking qualifications in real time can tell us exactly the sort of experience that they had during the history of qualification and exactly what is happening in schools and what support they are getting. They can also give us incredible insight into the ways in which assessment interacts with curriculum, which we know has been a concern in the past. That is why I feel quite strongly about that particular amendment.

Amendment 215 ensures that schoolteachers are represented on the qualifications Scotland board. I take the point about other teachers, such as college teachers, and the fact that, given the pre-emption in relation to her amendment 43, the cabinet secretary said that she would be prepared to bring the matter back at stage 3, supporting this amendment, which her own amendment pre-empts—I think that I have those numbers right. On that basis, providing that schoolteachers are represented on the board in a stage 3 amendment that we can agree on, I would be prepared to hold amendment 215 until stage 3.

Amendment 216 requires the board to contain a representative of a

“trade union operating in Scotland.”

I think that that ensures that the new board is informed by the voices of those with a stake in the delivery of the new qualifications in schools, colleges and other training facilities, not only by the voices of those who manage them. We need that, because previous reforms have not engaged appropriately with front-line educators. I spoke earlier about the distance between the front-line decisions and decision making and the clutter in the middle—indeed, I think that my colleague wants to comment on that.

Far from duplicating any processes, it would bring to the system the coherence that all the experts talked about in their evidence to this committee and that Ken Muir mentioned in his report. I keep referring to that report, but I think that most people around the table will accept that it has been pivotal to this discussion.

I think that this move would allow us to do what we really need to do: reform the functions, ensure that the accreditation function is separated from the SQA—or qualifications Scotland, which the bill would set up—and bring the curriculum to the forefront of things. We know the situation with assessment just now. Indeed, one of the reasons for Professor Hayward’s review is the fact that a lot of the teaching that goes on in schools is driven by exams. The member has heard evidence to that effect.

The curriculum has to be driven by what young people in Scotland will need in the future to contribute to society in whatever way they wish as adults. That will require the curriculum not to be driven by exams; in fact, exams will have to work very differently to how they work just now. I think that my suite of amendments would ensure that.

I realise that I am straying into arguments that I will be making in respect of the later groupings on curriculum Scotland, but we have to accept that, as countless reports have said, the structures are not right. We know that the distance between front-line professionals and Government decision making is quite big, and the ground between is cluttered. My amendments try to give the Government a suite of options to bring more coherence to the system, and I would like to think that we could find some support for them at this stage.

I will conclude—you will be pleased to hear, convener—by saying that amendments 115, 116, 118, 122 to 124, 126, 127, 132 to 134, 137, 139 and 206, all of which have been lodged and spoken to by Willie Rennie and all of which I support, are consequential to the options presented in amendments 291, 295 and the other amendments in the group. I encourage members across the committee to accept that there are several options in front of us for doing what we know pupils, staff, trade unions and experts want us to do—to separate the accreditation function from the SQA and qualifications Scotland in order to restore trust in the system.

I whole-heartedly agree with the member. In this circumstance, the interest is important and, where there is a conflict, it must be managed. The point that I made to the cabinet secretary earlier is that trade union representatives are well versed in understanding that, but the interest that they represent is crucial and should not be lost. That is why I have lodged the amendment in this group.

As we have discussed, a trade union seat on the board gives teachers and lecturers a formal route to shaping decisions and addressing concerns with the education system. It provides a pathway for them to share their professional expertise with those governing the country’s qualifications, demonstrates and strengthens democratic accountability and reflects Scotland’s commitment to public services, the workforce and fair work.

Amendment 217 stipulates that a representative of a trade union that represents staff of qualifications Scotland can be on the board. This is the amendment that we have previously discussed and on which we had interaction with regard to the ability of a board member who is a member of staff to manage that conflict. I have set out quite extensively why I think that the matter can be managed and why it should progress.

Amendment 218 stipulates that the board should include a representative with knowledge of or expertise in business, industry or skills development. I think that I am right in saying that the cabinet secretary said that she would be prepared to improve or change the amendment—the wording as it stands is excellent—to bring it to something that the Government could support. My interest in making sure that the qualifications system is fit for the future, including for business, industry and skills, is such that I feel strongly about having such a provision in the bill and I welcome the Government’s offer to work together to do so at stage 3.

Amendment 220 creates the option for the board to co-opt members for a period of four years, which is crucial, not only because of some of the circumstances that we have debated at length in the chamber and in committee, but because of the pace of change in education. I was lucky enough to be elected to the Parliament and to serve on the committee a few years ago, and the landscape has changed even since then. For example, the role played by artificial intelligence in schools and examinations—and, indeed, across society—has changed, so the ability to co-opt members will be really important. It is not an unusual ability for a board to have, and I am pleased that the Government is supportive of amendment 220. That is important.

I would have intervened when the Government was discussing amendment 53, but I was trying to keep up with the other numbers and the support or otherwise that the Government was indicating. I lodged a late manuscript amendment to amendment 53; I did so yesterday, which I admit was quite late in the day, but it was the first working day after I had met the cabinet secretary last Thursday to discuss in detail the Government amendments. That is why the manuscript amendment was late, and I do understand why the convener thought it not appropriate to select it.

Nevertheless, I believe that such an amendment could strengthen the Government’s amendment. As opposed to consulting when qualifications Scotland sees fit, my amendment would have said that it should just consult. It is important that the qualifications body consults, and I ask the Government to reflect on that at this point and to consider whether we could work together to strengthen the amendment at stage 3.

That covers all my amendments in the group.

With respect to the cabinet secretary’s comments about the scoping, I would have hoped that the Government would have done some of that work ahead of introducing the bill. Given the clarity with which experts in the profession and others have spoken, it is a bit late in the day to say to a member of the committee that scoping will take too long and delay the bill when the cabinet secretary’s amendment would delay any action on that by two years. I am afraid that I do not accept that point.

On the point about getting the scoping right, the cabinet secretary will have noted that subsection (5) of the proposed new section in amendment 291, on Education Scotland, provides regulation-making powers for the ministers to provide further details, to give the Government and the committee the opportunity to scrutinise the detail of the establishment of the accreditation function and delivery and to address the concerns that the cabinet secretary has raised. Contrary to the Government’s amendment 73, which says that it will review the operation of the accreditation provisions over a two-year period—I take the cabinet secretary’s point that it could look to bring that review forward a bit, but I still think that it is a bit of a delaying tactic, if I am honest. My amendment would get things moving quickly and give the Government the scope to take the extra time that it appears to need to look at the scoping that it probably should have done before it introduced the bill in the first place.

On the point about the definition, I think that, if the substantive amendment was accepted, we could add a definition at stage 3. It does not have to be a case of either/or. However, can the cabinet secretary give me a bit more detail on her point about the specific wording and her concern that it would not do what I am trying to do? Can she say more about what would be needed at stage 3 so that I can understand what she is, I think, offering to undertake?

I am sorry. If there were a mechanism for that, I would enjoy the back-and-forth.

I worry about this. I understand the point that has been made about Ross Greer’s position. However, I have to say to my colleague Willie Rennie that I am still a bit disappointed that we are in the position that we are in, which is that there are options for change on the table just now that, if Ross Greer and others were really minded to do so, they could support. I am a team player, I understand what Willie Rennie and Ross Greer are proposing and I accept that there needs to be discussion. However, I put on the record that I am disappointed that it appears that we cannot have that discussion now and that, in choosing not to agree to the amendments, members have actively decided not to make the decision for change. I am disappointed about that, and I would like to hear Willie Rennie’s response to that.