Seòmar agus comataidhean

So it will return to the committee and we can consider what we are reporting to the Parliament before we report. Is that correct?

Will that be a formal written report or will it just note the division in the committee? There might be some slight variance in nuance around the reassurances that the committee might or might not wish to seek from the minister. I am keen for that to be clarified.

The model code was consulted on. I assume that the figure of £25,000 was in the consultation draft of the code. Were there any objections to that value being placed in it? If not, I presume that individuals felt relatively content with it. I was asking for information on that.

Secondly, this is a model code. The minister referred to the fact that it can be adapted by the various bodies, which then seek the Government’s approval. Technically, could the figure vary between different codes or is £25,000 baked into a code that all bodies apply?

I thank Edward Mountain because he indicated various issues that had not been picked up on but might require a little bit more scrutiny. That is helpful.

Minister, did individuals and groups who responded to your consultation broadly support the £25,000 figure? I suppose that there has to be a figure and you will seek views on it. Were people generally content with it?

The code is a model code so, if a body thought that that value should be lower or higher, could it seek ministers’ approval to vary it?

You might have mopped up what I was hoping to clarify, convener, but I just want to check with the minister that this is not a general obligation to declare one’s dwelling house. One’s interest has to be significant and relevant to and bear on the operation of the public body in question. Will you put on the record that it is not a general obligation?

I suppose that the wider issue that was raised by Edward Mountain is that the requirement mirrors the obligations on councillors, not MSPs. Perhaps, then, the question that we should be asking—perhaps not today, but some other time—is about the difference between the obligations on councillors and the obligations on MSPs, rather than those on members of these boards. I would welcome your thoughts on that, minister. I also seek clarity on the point that there is no general obligation to register one’s dwelling house.

That is fine—as long as the committee agrees by correspondence.

If the committee is taking a view on the additional information that it wants from the minister and the reasons behind it, I would be keen to have a look at the report before it is issued.

I will follow on from Stephanie Callaghan’s line of questioning about the past two years.

Under the alternative certification models, despite huge challenges, young people from the most deprived areas have had far more qualifications awarded to them than in previous years. That is positive, even if the scenarios that they had to face were deeply harmful to them. What have been the strengths of evidence-based, teacher-led professional judgment leading to certification under the alternative certification models? What have been the successes and, more important, what are the strengths of that system that we should not throw out once Covid is no longer with us?

I have a brief supplementary question about the agreement between the SQA and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission that Mr Marra referred to. I note that the EHRC was very positive about the two-year agreement to drive up standards and that it believes that that will happen. Lynne Welsh from the EHRC also says:

“This agreement sends a clear message to other public bodies that considering the impact of their work on people from protected groups is critical in fulfilling their legal duties.”

It is important to put that on the record, too. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that public bodies across Scotland learn lessons from the SQA’s experience and can drive up their own standards?

I hope that that was brief enough.