Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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 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.

I believe that we have made real progress and that there are dedicated teachers out there today—we saw that in the 2022 report—who are making a real difference and improving the life chances of Scotland’s children and young people, including some of the most vulnerable.

I go back to the points that I made at the start. You cannot measure the SNP against a point back in 2016 and ignore the global context since then. The challenge is not unique to Scotland: it is being faced in other parts of the United Kingdom and globally. We must not set aside the impact of the pandemic, which did not allow us to make as much progress as we would have expected by this point.

I accept that. The convener has made political points, so I also accept that my party has been in power throughout that period and that progress has happened on my party’s watch and is to be welcomed.

I accept the member’s challenge regarding the point at which the Scottish attainment challenge was launched, but I cannot detract from the impacts that the pandemic and austerity are having on our schools. I go back to the points that I made my original contribution. To be blunt, headteachers are now using PEF money to plug gaps that the welfare state should be providing for and the use of austerity policies in relation to benefits has harmed and damaged some of our most vulnerable families. Headteachers now find themselves in the invidious position of having to help vulnerable families while also thinking about educational interventions. They have to make choices.

I confirmed that SAC and PEF will continue—although what comes next is obviously in the gift of the next Government—but we need to think about the totality of school funding and how that can be sustained in the future.

We do, because that was specified at stage 1. The member has a view in relation to trade union membership—

Indeed. It is the case that the data shows record improvements—

Do you mean tomorrow’s meeting?

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.

My 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.

We do not gather the data in that way.