Seòmar agus comataidhean

Nico made a hugely important point. In the stage 1 report there was acceptance that a board would need to be created. There is a requirement for the order to be introduced to allow us to do so. I take on board the convener’s and Ms Duncan-Glancy’s points about stages 2 and 3. We have given a reassurance today that the Government will have to reflect that in our recruitment processes, but that is a normal part of a Government establishing a new NDPB. On the other hand, considering an alternative approach would leave the Government open to the risk of having to run a truncated recruitment process that might not be acceptable to the Ethical Standards Commissioner. We would need to speak to the commissioner about that.

There would be an inherent risk in our not moving forward with the order, because we would not be able to make the required appointments, notwithstanding that the Government would have to—and will—listen to amendments at stages 2 and 3. This is about timescales in establishing the new body. If the committee were to vote down the order today, or not move on it, that would delay the appointments process, and potentially delay the establishment of qualifications Scotland as a body. Members should be aware of that real inherent risk this morning.

The decision making around that pre-dates my time in office, so I might ask my officials to speak to things that have not worked. In my experience, the move was welcomed. Some local authorities took the view that they were missing out—to be blunt, they were missing out on the funding, given that we had nine challenge authorities—and we had to respond to that ask. The move was welcomed at the time.

David Leng has already spoken about some of the issues with tapering and the additional support that we provided. If you look at the funding that is going to local authorities in the round, you will see that record levels of investment are coming from the Government. I spoke to the funding that has been protected for education in relation to teacher numbers and ASN, and it is important that we protect those budget lines, although there is probably a debate to be had on the extent of ring fencing of education spend.

The approach was broadly welcomed. I will bring in officials on the question of what did not work well, because it pre-dates my time in my role.

I have not seen it yet, but I will be happy to share the details of it with you.

That is an interesting point. I do not know whether members were out and about in their constituencies last week for Scottish apprenticeship week, but I hope that they were. I always ask young people who are undertaking an apprenticeship how they found out about it, and I always receive a variety of answers. I think that there is space in the careers collaborative work that Mr Dey is leading at the moment and in education reform, in particular—although not through legislation—to look at our careers offering. I am very keen that we do that—Mr Dey is already undertaking such work—to ensure that young people are advised about the pathways that are open to them.

When I was at Glenrothes high school in my constituency last week, I had a chat with Roddy Campbell, who is the careers adviser there. He knows all his young people. Some young people who have left Glenrothes high school will come back to speak to Roddy about their pathways. There might be confusion about destinations for many young people, but others get real support, and the headteacher at Glenrothes high school says that she could not do her job without having such a strong offering from that careers adviser.

There are examples of good practice, but there is also a need for us to look again at how we can better support consistency. One key theme that came out of the 2022 report was that there is local variance in attainment across the country. We need to see greater consistency in the support that is provided for young people, particularly by the careers service.

Yes, it is quite striking. I think that there are a number of reasons for the issue. I have not been given further advice in relation to that gender split, so I will ask our officials to look at that in a bit more detail.

I suspect that it might relate to the fact that, in general—although I do not like to make generalisations—women are often able to talk about their feelings in ways that men might find more challenging. That relates to our understanding of masculinity. Particularly in Scotland, there are quite gendered traditional perceptions around talking about your feelings, and that might be coming out in some of that evidence.

Of course, the other interesting point is the rise of misogyny in our schools, which might be behind the issue. However, to be perfectly honest, I have not had official advice on the issue, and I will ask officials to look at it in the round.

It is hugely important that we create permanent contracts, and local authorities were given extra money in the budget to allow them to do that. I observe that Pam Duncan-Glancy’s party abstained on the budget.

Mr Mason, I am not surprised by some of the questioning, although I am not sure that I share your views about my former union—the EIS.

This is a normal order, and such orders are required when making board appointments. I accept that there is a diverse range of views around the committee table in relation to board appointments, and the Government will have to reflect that in its recruitment processes. If we do not move now, there will be a delay to appointment processes. That would be concerning, because that would impact on the delivery model that is associated with qualifications Scotland.

The member spoke about the Scottish Fiscal Commission. I also reflect my responsibilities, in a previous life, as Minister for Transport, when we routinely appointed board members to Scottish Rail Holdings Limited. It will be of interest to Ms Duncan-Glancy to note that there was railway trade union representation on the SRH board, which was an ask at that time.

As I said, this is a normal order. I go back to my concern about delaying the process, but that is a matter for the committee to decide on today; it is not for me.

Nico McKenzie-Juetten also highlighted the point that, if we took a truncated approach, it might lead to a scenario in which some of the board appointments would be unregulated, which would be highly unusual.

That will be a matter for the next Government.

I do not have anything further to add to Nico McKenzie-Juetten’s comments on that aspect.

I heard what Miles Briggs asked about stage 3—Pam Duncan-Glancy made that point earlier. I go back to Clare Hicks’s point that we would not seek to begin the recruitment round until we had certainty on any such amendments, because we would not be able to make appointments to a board without listening to the Parliament in relation to the amendments that the Government will accept. We have to reflect that in the recruitment process, but my concern as cabinet secretary is that if we sit still—this is predicated on the advice that my officials have given me—we risk not having board appointments in place for the new operational qualifications Scotland. I do not think that that will be credible to Scotland’s teachers or to pupils and their parents. It is therefore imperative that we have the board appointments in place.