Seòmar agus comataidhean

Absolutely. That will clarify the role and deliver greater accountability.

I think that the view would have been that Government had not listened. It is important that we do that. We have to learn lessons from the pandemic and all that happened during that time. It was deeply damaging to our education system and our young people, and Government has to respond. A decision was taken prior to my time in office to replace the SQA. I agree with that decision, and I think that it is important that we legislate on the matter.

On the issue of the chief inspector, separating out the independence via primary legislation is a significant change. That was not done previously. Again, that speaks to the need for independence and for the chief inspector to be able to offer objectivity in the process. Particularly during the previous session of Parliament, an argument was espoused that, in Education Scotland, we had the inspectorate marking its own homework, and that challenge was levied at Government, too. We debated that issue pretty routinely in the previous session.

I believe that our acting with legislation in relation to the SQA is the right thing to do. Separating out the chief inspector role and creating that new office holder in statute for the first time is also important.

Well, we do not always have to use legislation to drive change, although I think that it is part of the solution here. I suppose that it goes back to Bill Kidd’s question about cultural change. When I was appointed, I looked at some of the changes, and I had to question critically where we were. I built in a delay last year partly so that I could work with Scotland’s teachers. We could have powered ahead with the bill last year, but listening to Scotland’s teachers was really important to and instructive for my view of Professor Hayward’s recommendations.

We will hear a range of different views, but we also exist in a Parliament of minorities, so I am keen to hear committee members’ suggestions for improvements and where you think that the bill could be strengthened. I want to work with you on this, but I do not think that sitting still with the status quo is acceptable. We have to get a grip of where we are post-pandemic on the senior phase and the delivery of qualifications.

As committee members are aware, there are myriad challenges out there. Part of the solution is legislative reform of the qualifications body, but that is only part of the jigsaw. I can create legislation that we can debate until 2026, if committee members are so minded. However, legislation is only part of the jigsaw, as we also have to think about wider education system recovery, post-pandemic.

I take on board the critique, but I am also looking for answers. If committee members have strong views that we are not in the right space on a range of different issues, I am happy to hear them. We can look again at how we can strengthen the bill, but we cannot stand still. It is pretty much accepted in Scotland’s secondary teacher community that where we got to with the SQA during the pandemic was not acceptable, so we have to legislate to replace the SQA. How we do that is really important, and I commit to working with all committee members to that end.

I have heard a range of different points of view on that, so it is not necessarily the case that everyone is of the same view that Ms Duncan-Glancy has just espoused. However, as I mentioned in my earlier response to her, I am here to listen to committee members. If there are parts of the bill that the committee has issues with, I will hear about those challenges and we will reflect on them in the changes that we might be able to make at stage 2.

I think that the committee has taken evidence on the need for children’s involvement not to be tokenistic. Some members would have been in the Parliament during the year of young people in 2018, in the previous parliamentary session. At that time, we had a real push to embed the learner voice, or the pupil voice—young people’s voices, essentially—within a range of approaches across Government. Sometimes, to my mind, that can feel tokenistic, so it is important that their involvement is meaningful.

It is also important to say that, prior to the introduction of any legislation, young people have been involved throughout the reform process. They were really involved in the national discussion, for example, and their views were fundamental in driving some of Professor Hayward’s recommendations.

Very recently, I have engaged pretty closely with the Scottish Youth Parliament, and I am keen to continue that engagement in the development of the bill.

The approach to the learner charter is fundamental to my mind, because—

The committee has to support decision making, and it has to support better decision making in the interests of learners or young people—whatever term we want to use to differentiate them. It is hugely important that the new approach to governance informs better decisions for young people and learners across the piece.

I am sure that it would.

The charters have to be co-designed with those groups, though, so I do not think that qualifications Scotland will get to dictate the level of ambition.

Is the member concerned that qualifications Scotland would seek to stymie the level of ambition?

A range of consequences flow from the charters. First of all, they provide the new accountability framework that we have talked about, but a level of scrutiny will come with them, too. That scrutiny will come from Parliament and the public, but ministers will also have a role in ensuring that the charters deliver on expectations.

The member mentioned parental involvement. In response to a previous question, I spoke about the role of parents on both of the interest committees and our expectations with regard to the policy memorandum. We can, perhaps, look at strengthening some of that, too.

The charters are really about scrutinising qualifications Scotland’s adherence to what stakeholders, whoever they may be, have been telling it and ensuring that it addresses and drives forward any required changes and that, as a result, it is not tokenistic. That is, I suppose, a challenge on which the committee has heard a range of views—that is, how we ensure that the governance structures drive meaningful change in practice. After all, a bill—a piece of legislation—is not necessarily going to drive the type of meaningful change that we need in that organisation. Changing some of the governance structures is key, and I think that that is the point that the member is making.