���˿���

The regulations have not yet been brought forward, and I am keen to work with members to ensure agreement on what they specify.

On the other part of the question, we have talked about the parliamentary scrutiny of qualifications Scotland, and we will, additionally, talk about that in greater detail in later groups.

I am listening to Mr Kerr develop his point. He talks about greater clarity, but the SCQF provides that clarity at a national level, encompassing all qualifications. He is seeking to duplicate—I think that that is the point that Mr Adam was making—by having another framework embedded, as I understand it, within qualifications Scotland, and that would create more confusion. Does Mr Kerr agree that more challenge in how qualifications are interpreted will be created by duplicating something that already exists?

Will the member take an intervention?

The member talks about moving functions and its associated costs, and I alluded to staff costs and staff terms and conditions in my commentary. Has she given any thought to how long the process would take? I am very mindful of the need for this bill to take effect and have an impact in our schools, where it should be having an impact, as quickly as possible. This is fundamentally about driving reform forward.

Some of the challenge that I face as cabinet secretary is that, as we have heard from Mr Mason, any reconsideration of establishing a new body not only would come with associated costs but would take time. Has the member scoped the time associated with moving staff across and the duration of the delay to education reform that that might create?

We are all in agreement that it is paramount that the board of qualifications Scotland is set up to lead the organisation in order to better support teachers and practitioners and to support those taking qualifications. We must also be alive to what the role of the board of an NDPB involves and ensure that it has the appropriate balance of skills to enable it to deliver on its corporate governance requirements.

Board size is an important element to get right. If a board is too small, we limit the skills and experience, and if it is too big, we create a board in which efficient decision making and corporate responsibilities are at risk. Bearing in mind those two requirements, I have reviewed the bill specifications on the range of skills required and members’ amendments in that respect and have lodged amendments 41 and 42 to increase both the minimum and maximum number of other board members—that is, membership that is not the chairing member, the accreditation convener and the chief executive. The amendments propose an increase of one, to seven and 11, respectively, increasing the total board size from a minimum of 9 to a minimum of 10 and from a maximum of 13 to a maximum of 14.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 211 and 212 seek to increase the minimum board size to 13 and the maximum to 15. I have reflected on that proposal, and I am content that it would be sensible for the sake of flexibility to set the maximum at 15, as Ms Duncan-Glancy has proposed, instead of 14, as I had initially proposed. Given that the amendments are direct alternatives, I ask members to support my amendment 42, as it will support the direction of travel to a higher maximum, but I also ask members to support amendment 212 to ensure that the maximum is ultimately set at 15—that is, 12 members in addition to the three named positions.

I have some concerns about Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 211, which seeks to increase the minimum ordinary membership to 10. The amendment would create a minimum membership of 13 in total, when we take the appointments of a chairing member, accreditation convener and chief executive alongside it, as opposed to a minimum of 10 total members, which would be achieved through my amendment 41. The main concern that I have with the amendment is that it risks creating a large minimum board, which will require careful risk management when it comes to public appointments and maintaining a legally compliant and quorate board in the event of members unexpectedly ending their appointment.

That happened quite recently—in 2023—in the SQA, which has a much lower minimum board membership. Members unexpectedly stood down, and permission was then required from the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland to rush through an appointments round to ensure that the board remained quorate. With that in mind, I urge members to support amendment 41, as opposed to amendment 211.

Amendment 213 requires consultation with the board as a whole, rather than just the chair, if the power is used to change the size of the board in the future. Although I find it unlikely that a chairing member would not engage with their board on decisions of such scale, I am content to support the amendment.

With regard to the board’s composition, there was a good discussion at stage 1 on whether a learner—more specifically, a young person—should be appointed to the board. Currently, the provisions focus on having knowledge and experience of the views and needs of those taking qualifications rather than on specific age-related criteria. The current provisions do not exclude a young person from being appointed; indeed, it is long-standing public appointments policy that anyone over the age of 16 can be appointed to a board.

As it was the intention behind the current provision in the bill to enable a wide scope of potential candidates to be appointed, be they someone with experience of taking a qualification or someone with experience of advocating on behalf of learners, without limiting it to those criteria, I am sympathetic to Mr Greer’s amendment 28, which seeks to ensure that someone under the age of 26 who is or has recently taken a qualification is appointed to the board. The amendment recognises the importance of ensuring a wide scope of potential applicants by not confining it to too young an age.

However, as this is a type of amendment that would, albeit in a positive way, seek to discriminate on the basis of age, we would have to be satisfied that it would be compatible with equality law, if it did proceed. I see the value in having a young person with experience of taking qualifications on the board, and we would be happy to work with Mr Greer to ensure that efforts were made to promote and encourage applications from those under 26. I therefore ask Mr Greer not to press the amendment and to work with me and other stakeholders to consider how we can best do that effectively.

More broadly, I recognise that more should be done to strengthen the relationship between the board member appointed to reflect the interests of learners and the wider education system. That is why, if Mr Greer were interested, I would be keen to work up a stage 3 amendment to require such an individual to consult directly with learners and those who represent them as part of their statutory board duties.

In lodging amendment 29, Mr Greer also seeks a change in respect of consultation. I will wait to hear his rationale for that, but, on the surface, it is something that I might be able to support. I will come back to it in my closing remarks.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 214 requires someone taking a qualification offered by qualifications Scotland to be appointed to the board. Again, although I see the value of such experience, I have two concerns about the amendment. The first is that the duration of qualifications varies from as little as a few weeks to as long as a number of years, and that creates challenges with maintaining board membership once those qualifications end. The second concern relates to a clear conflict of interest, as I do not think it appropriate for an individual who is taking a qualification offered by qualifications Scotland to have a non-executive leadership role in the organisation. I therefore ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move her amendment, noting my commitment to Mr Greer to work on something that, I believe, will have the same effect.

With regard to the teacher voice on the board, ensuring that qualifications Scotland is led by the experience of those who deliver learning, teaching and training for qualifications is an absolute priority. That is why the bill explicitly requires that a number of teachers, and college-based teachers, be on the board. That said, I recognise that increasing the proportion of teacher experience on the board would be desirable—although I am mindful of doing so in a way that does not limit the other range of valuable skills that are required on the board.

I note that Mr Greer has lodged two packages of amendments as options for improving that proportion. Amendments 43 to 46 work together to ensure that there is always a minimum of five teacher or college members on the board and that there must be a balanced proportion between teacher and college members where there is, at most, one more than the other. That teacher or college experience could come from any of the members on the board, including the chairing member. The amendments also ensure that, should the board size change, more than one third of the membership will always be teachers or college lecturers.

I have interpreted the alternative amendment 27 as taking a slightly more limiting approach that could impact on access to other skills being on the board. I understand that it will require there to always be a majority of members who are teachers or college teachers in the “other members” section of the board—that is, the section that does not include the chairing member, the accreditation convener or the chief executive.

That could have two effects. Mr Greer will agree that the first is especially undesirable, as the current board size would mean that there could be a lower minimum of just four teacher or college members. His alternative, which I am supporting, ensures that there will be five. The second is less desirable from a corporate governance perspective when it is read alongside the other specified criteria in the bill. It would mean that there is a risk that there could be insufficient seats on the board for the wider skills that would be needed to lead the organisation, because of the number of seats that are filled by teachers and other learner or staff-focused members. Taking all that into account, my preference would be to support amendments 43 and 46. I encourage members to do that.

I note that Ms Duncan-Glancy has lodged two amendments to support teacher members on the board. Amendment 215 would ensure that any teacher members who are appointed are teachers from schools. I see no issue with supporting that amendment, as it is the intention that they would be delivering qualifications in schools. If amendment 43 is accepted, amendment 215 will be pre-empted, but I would be happy to support making that change at stage 3.

Amendment 216 requires there to be a board member who is representative of a teaching trade union that operates in Scotland. As I have said many times during the progress of the bill, we must be mindful of the requirements for public body appointments, which come with the duty to govern effectively the organisation to which people are appointed, regardless of other roles that they might hold, so they should not represent the interests of other organisations while they are on the board.

I do not want to run the risk of creating a form of representative board model for qualifications Scotland. It was a representative board model at the SQA that was deemed to be one of the key sources of the failure that led to the awarding and examination issue in 2000. That drove forward urgent legislation at that time to change the board model to that which the SQA stipulates today. It meant that the board was specifically focused on corporate governance as well as the relevant education and skills experience. I therefore cannot support amendment 216. I encourage others to reject the amendment, noting that Mr Greer’s amendments, which I have referred to, should provide additional reassurance that qualifications Scotland will have sufficient teacher and college experience on the board.

I do, however, believe that there is good cause to strengthen the relationship between qualifications Scotland and the teaching unions. That is why I would be interested in lodging an amendment at stage 3 that would require the teaching and college board members to lead the board’s engagement and consultation with teaching unions. If Pam Duncan-Glancy sees that as something that we could work together on, I ask her not to move amendment 216.

Coming to the voice of staff on the board, throughout my engagement with SQA staff I have listened carefully to their desire for a more robust mechanism for qualifications Scotland. I understand that the trade unions that act for SQA staff would like to see board membership for them—a request that mirrors Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 217. I have considered that option carefully and I remain sympathetic to it. However, I have concerns about the application of direct staff roles in a non-departmental public body, given the associated corporate governance implications for how a trade union would work in practice for the operation of the board and, importantly, for the individual, given the focus and nature of the operational responsibilities of an NDPB and the need to navigate potentially significant conflicts of interest.

The function would not move from Education Scotland but from the SQA. However, as I think the committee heard in evidence from the previous chief inspector, there is a broader issue, in that the scope of accreditation does not apply to all qualifications at present. Government amendment 73 seeks to consider whether accreditation needs to apply across the board. There are arguments in favour of and against that. The submission from the SCQF Partnership that I think the committee received this week talks about some of the challenges in taking an evidence-based approach. More broadly, there is a requirement for us to look at the budget associated with the matter, which we expect would increase. We expect that any movement of the function from the SQA would be associated with increased start-up costs, which I will talk about in more detail.

If we left the accreditation function within qualifications Scotland, it would benefit from the transitioning shared services arrangements that I think that Mr Rennie also spoke about. It is an unaffordable option at this time, when the education budget is already stretched, as members are aware. Therefore, I ask Mr Rennie not to move his amendment 167 and related amendments. For the same reason, I ask Mr Kerr not to move his amendment 316, which has broadly the same effect as Mr Rennie’s proposals by conferring the accreditation functions on the chief inspector.

For similar reasons, I cannot support amendment 287 in Mr Rennie’s name, which seeks to move the accreditation function to the SCQF Partnership. Members know that moving the location of the function to the partnership was previously given full consideration. However, a number of risks were identified with that option at the time. I note that, as I mentioned in my response to Mr Kerr, the SCQF Partnership has since reaffirmed those challenges and risks in a letter that it sent to the committee last week. In that letter, the partnership highlighted the confidence that it has in the current arrangements and committed to working with qualifications Scotland to further improve the bodies’ shared confidence in each other.

Another crucial factor was the identity of, and distinction between, the SCQF Partnership’s rating function and the SQA accreditation function. Unlike the SQA function, the rating function covers all types of qualifications, including degrees and diplomas. It recognises and measures learning differently, using a system in which credit bodies allocate credit points depending on how long it takes to achieve that learning.

Another important consideration is the organisational status of the SCQF Partnership compared to the accreditation function. The partnership is an independent, registered charity, and there are clear benefits to maintaining that independence, which stakeholders recognise and support. That independence is not recognised by Mr Rennie’s amendment, which would create an ability for Scottish ministers to determine the SCQF Partnership’s functions.

That difference in status also risks the accreditation function no longer being strategically accountable to Scottish ministers as it currently is by being a non-departmental public body function. That means that it will be more challenging to ensure that accreditation meets the needs of the Scottish Government’s priorities for qualifications. For example, if the accreditation function were to move to the SCQF Partnership and an incident or issue were to arise, Scottish ministers would be limited in their ability to intervene to address it. Without that accountability to ministers, the level of accountability that the accreditation function would have to the Scottish Parliament would be significantly reduced from the current arrangements.

I turn to the issue of staffing, which I think that Mr Rennie also spoke to. The move would significantly change the employment status of current accreditation staff. They would no longer be public servants; instead, they would be employed by a charity. The risk is that that does not take account of the loss of skills and expertise that might occur if staff do not want to move, given that change in employment terms.

Other factors include disruption to services and concerns around the capacity and resource of the SCQF Partnership to meet the needs of both functions. Therefore, I ask Mr. Rennie not to move amendment 287 and the related amendments.

I turn to Ms. Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 291, which seeks to locate the accreditation function within Education Scotland. Members know that Education Scotland is an executive agency of the Scottish Government. Therefore amendment 291 would bring the accreditation function under closer control of Scottish ministers, which I do not think that members would want.

I am asking members to support a number of amendments in this group that would ensure that the board of qualifications Scotland was teacher led. That goes to the heart of Ms Duncan-Glancy’s point about re-establishing trust with the profession, which is a key part of education reform. I have also asked members to support a board model that achieves that re-establishment of trust while ensuring a balanced mixture of the skills required, as outlined in amendments 41 to 44.

On the point about bringing in a wider range of skills and experience, I would be happy, as I said to Ms Duncan-Glancy in my opening comments, to work with her on amendments 218 and 220 to ensure that the board is able to react effectively to changing needs for expertise.

Mr Greer made a point about trade union representation in connection, I think, with amendment 216, and he asked about a potential conflict of interest in having members of teaching trade unions on the board. The fundamental issue is that we would be changing the board structure to make it a representative board. As he knows, there are a number of different teaching trade unions, and there would be calls from all those unions to have a seat at the table, which would, again, extend and expand number of people on the board. It also raises the question why that would stop at teaching trade unions and why the board could not include the broader educational workforce. A range of teaching trade unions, and other unions, would have an interest in having a seat at the table, and I think that that would fundamentally change the board structure that we have devised.

As for learner voice, I am happy to work with members to ensure that the experience of people taking qualifications is reflected on the board. That is why I have asked Mr Greer not to move amendment 28. I heard his commentary and that of Ms Duncan-Glancy on amendment 214 and ask them to work with me ahead of stage 3 to deliver on that shared approach.

I thank Mr Greer for outlining his approach with regard to amendment 29. I very much recognise that groups such as parents might be categorised as representing learners’ interests and, on that basis, I am happy to support that amendment.

I acknowledge the rationale behind prescribing further stipulations for board membership, such as those in amendment 217, which seeks to place trade union representatives on the board. However, given the concerns about public appointments and the possible conflict of interest that I have previously raised, I encourage members to support amendment 53 instead, as it would provide for a designated member who would be required to undertake greater consultation with staff and their trade unions to ensure that their views were reflected.

I am unable to support the amendments that aim to prescribe membership and reiterate my request to Ms Duncan-Glancy and Mr Greer not to move amendments 211, 204, 216, 217, 27, 28, 30 and 31, for the reasons that I have previously set out.

I note the manuscript amendment that was lodged yesterday by Ms Duncan-Glancy, which sought to amend my amendment 53 to require staff interest board members to consult the relevant groups, as opposed to consulting when it was considered appropriate to do so. I very much understand the member’s thinking here, but I am a bit concerned that such a change would require, under the provisions in amendment 53, consultation on everything—which would be quite wide ranging—rather than just on aspects of direct interest and relevance to staff. I would want to take more time to consider the implications of that amendment if it were to be brought back at stage 3, and I am more than happy to engage with the member on her proposals to that end.

I thank Mr Rennie for explaining the thinking behind his amendments. Without wanting to pre-empt anything that Ms Duncan-Glancy or Mr Kerr might say, I recognise the strength of feeling from committee members regarding the location of the accreditation function. Indeed, we discussed the matter substantively during stage 1, and it is a key recommendation from the committee’s stage 1 report.

The decision regarding the location of the accreditation function pre-dates my time as cabinet secretary. However, as members know, the Scottish Government undertook a full exploration at that time, using criteria that included—as Mr Rennie referred to—value for money; independence from ministers; continuity of service; effectiveness of existing services; and the level of disruption to staff. That work included extensive engagement with key accreditation stakeholders—for example, other public and charitable bodies such as Education Scotland, the Scottish Funding Council, Skills Development Scotland, the SCQF Partnership and the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education in Scotland; 25 awarding bodies that deliver qualifications in Scotland; staff at SQA accreditation; the SQA accreditation committee; and staff of regulation organisations in England and Wales, such as Ofqual and Qualifications Wales.

The Government looked closely at a number of alternative locations, including the new inspectorate, Education Scotland, the SCQF Partnership and, among others, SDS and the Scottish Funding Council, in addition to the possibility of establishing a stand-alone non-departmental public body.

Following that analysis, locating the accreditation function within qualifications Scotland was identified at that time as the strongest option.

Amendment 167 from Mr Rennie seeks to locate the accreditation function within the new office of the chief inspector. That amendment risks simply moving to another body the issue that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and Professor Muir identified. The committee also heard evidence that reflected that position from an education inspector who attended the committee on behalf of the First Division Association and from staff at the inspectorate and Education Scotland.

The framework for, and operation of, accreditation is different from the inspection of education establishments. Therefore, different governance, accountability and operational arrangements, including the staff and skills to deliver the functions, would be needed for each function, and there would be different relationships with the Scottish ministers.

Mr Greer’s amendment 2 calls for the addition to the bill of a founding principle for qualifications Scotland. This founding principle is stated as supporting and providing for those who are undertaking a qualification and those who are delivering a qualification in Scotland. I have a number of concerns about how that is defined, and about the concept of a founding principle more generally.

If we were to have a founding principle, it would be imperative that we grasp the full scope of services and activities to be undertaken by the qualifications body. That encompasses many services and responsibilities, which I do not believe have been captured in the text of the amendment. For example, the principle would not apply to the provision of services that are delivered outwith Scotland, or to the full range of qualifications and assessment services that qualifications Scotland will provide. However, I want to make it clear that I agree that it is important that qualifications Scotland prioritises services that are delivered in Scotland.

As drafted, amendment 2 is not clear on what is meant by the terms “support” or “provide for”. That could create a new role for qualifications Scotland that it is not designed to fulfil, such as the provision of pastoral or counselling services, which would not sit easily—nor should it—with the core functions of a national qualifications body.

As much as I agree with Mr. Greer’s focus on children, young people and adult learners, as well as on teachers and practitioners, his founding principle does not mention the many other important stakeholders that qualifications Scotland works with and supports, not least in higher education, business and industry, as well as other third-party stakeholders and public organisations.

I also have a more general concern, which is that the insertion of any kind of founding principle could lead to unintended consequences. It is never possible to know in advance how such a provision could be held to affect other provisions in the bill, which seem, on the face of it, to be absolute in their terms. I would not want to risk introducing such a lack of predictability or transparency.

For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 2. However, I note that Mr. Greer’s amendment 3, in group 7, proposes something slightly more straightforward around the body’s functions. While there would be areas to address in that respect, I hope that it might be possible for us to work with him to do something in that space, rather than his pressing amendment 2 to a vote today.

The structure that the member talks about is replicated on a number of boards. In the instance in my example, there are challenges in how the staff voice and teacher voice might be incorporated within the current board composition. I have set out my amendments and proposals in relation to consultation that go some way towards addressing that issue.

More broadly, I encourage members to support amendment 53, which seeks to strengthen staff voice arrangements within the organisation. The issue that I have in this instance goes back to the point that I made previously about the composition of the board and some of the issues that were experienced in 2000 with a representative board model that was arguably not as focused on governance as it should have been at that time. Amendment 53 would ensure much closer working between the board, staff and unions, which I believe goes some way towards addressing Ms Duncan-Glancy’s points. It requires the member appointed with knowledge of staff interest to consult and engage with staff and trade unions, and I have lodged another amendment in group 6 that further enhances the relationship.

Ms Duncan-Glancy has lodged two more amendments on board composition, both of which I am interested in supporting in some form. The first, amendment 218, seeks to ensure that knowledge of business, industry and skills is reflected in the statutory criteria of the board. That is an essential element of qualifications Scotland’s functions and services, and I fully expect that to be reflected in the board in some form. I am, however, mindful of how requiring a public body to have specific business and industry knowledge on the board could be viewed. I would be interested in refining that position to focus on an individual who brings experience that is more related to the skills and training sector. I recognise the value that business and industry knowledge can bring to the body, and I would be happy to work with the member on that issue ahead of stage 3.

The second amendment, amendment 220, enables qualifications Scotland to co-opt additional members if required. I am supportive of that in principle. However, for it to work, I believe that some tweaks and additional provisions will need to be added to ensure that co-opted members could be appointed in a way that did not undermine the ministerial public appointments process or the necessary limits on board numbers. I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to press amendment 220, so that we can work on a solution ahead of stage 3.

I will comment on amendments 30 and 31, which, together, add a limitation of eight consecutive years as the maximum board appointment period. Eight years is the maximum for public appointments set out in the Ethical Standards Commissioner’s code for public appointments. That means that appointments to qualifications Scotland, regulated by the commissioner, will automatically align with that limit. To that end, although I am supportive of the general principle of Ross Greer’s amendments, I cannot support them, given the arrangements that are already present in the commissioner’s code. Relying on the code instead would ensure that the body always keeps pace with best practice, rather than setting something in statute now that may not be appropriate in the future.

I move amendment 41.