���˿���

I thank Ms Duncan-Glancy for explaining the purpose of her amendments. I note that the establishment of two committees that will be dedicated to the interests of children, young people and adult learners and to those of teachers and practitioners has been broadly welcomed. However, as I recognised in the Government’s response to the committee’s stage 1 report, we have an opportunity to further strengthen their intended impact. Members have lodged several amendments regarding the membership of those committees.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 225 sets out a very important principle: the diverse needs and interests of Scotland’s people should be represented in qualifications Scotland’s committees and sub-committees. The amendment aims to ensure that people from marginalised communities and socially disadvantaged backgrounds are considered, and I fully agree with her proposal. The amendment reflects the objectives for interest committees as set out in the bill’s policy memorandum.

However, there are some challenges with amendment 225 as it is currently drafted. I question whether the terminology is precise enough for what I believe Ms Duncan-Glancy is trying to achieve. In order for the amendment to work in the way that she intends, it would have to be drafted differently. We would also need to be sure that the term “socio-economically disadvantaged” would work in the context of the bill and to consider whether we need to adjust the amendment to include an appropriate definition to sit alongside it. I ask her not to press amendment 225, with a view to working with me on the issue ahead of stage 3.

I have discussed the wording with officials. On the point about the term “socio-economically disadvantaged”, a range of terms are used in historical legislation, and we want to be absolutely sure about the definition. That is the challenge in relation to how the amendment is drafted. However, I am more than happy to work with Ms Duncan-Glancy on that to ensure that we capture the correct definition, because I support what she is trying to do, which is to ensure that we have a much more representative board. I hope that that allays her concerns in that regard.

I thank Mr Greer and Mr Kerr for explaining the purposes of their amendments. As we have heard, amendments 47 and 48 are about the creation of a new statutory position of chief examiner, which would be separate from the role of chief executive. That person would require to be registered with the General Teaching Council for Scotland. I remind members that I am a member of the GTCS.

I highlight to the committee, as Ross Greer did, that the SQA has already implemented a new executive management structure, which includes the newly defined roles of chief executive and chief examiner as separate functions. Only yesterday, along with the director of education reform, Clare Hicks, I spoke to the chair of the SQA. She talked to us at length about how warmly that position change by the SQA has been welcomed. It is our expectation that that shift to the separation of those leadership positions will transfer to qualifications Scotland.

I ask Mr Kerr to indulge me. He talks about experts, but I wonder whether I could draw his attention back to the evidence that the committee received from the SCQF Partnership, which advised that it would encourage any future deliberations on the issue to focus on addressing only evidenced risks within the current qualifications system in Scotland, not least due to the current fiscal operating environment. The SCQF Partnership is also an expert in this.

I am not denying that we need to look at accreditation, and the location of accreditation, in the future; indeed, the Government amendment commits and compels Government to do so. However, there is no simple answer, as I think that Mr Mason was alluding to. The solution that Mr Kerr puts forward is laden with risk and additional costs. Does he recognise that?

Does he also recognise the evidence that the committee received from the expert body, the SCQF Partnership, which talked about addressing this through an evidence-based approach within the current qualifications system?

I have heard a range of different options and amendments proposed and debated today, but there is no agreed, cross-party view coming from the committee that I can look at and respond to. The Government’s amendment moves us somewhat in relation to decisions that were taken previously, as I alluded to in my response to Mr Kerr. However, I will take Mr Briggs and Mr Greer at their word and say that I would be happy not to move the Government’s amendment in order to see whether we can reach that cross-party consensus on accreditation in advance of stage 3. However, that is contingent on other members doing likewise.

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.

The member talks about moving functions and the 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?

To provide Mr Kerr with clarity on that, no, it is not. The point that I was making was that a decision on the Government’s position on accreditation was reached some time ago. However, as cabinet secretary, I have listened to and engaged extensively with the committee on the purposes of accreditation and have reflected that in the Government amendment. I thought that Mr Kerr would have welcomed having a listening cabinet secretary.

I am happy to have taken that intervention from Ms Duncan-Glancy. I have already alluded to the extensive engagement that was undertaken prior to my time in office, which considered a range of different bodies. There is no unilateral view on where the accreditation function should sit and, additionally, no one view, I think, stemmed from the stage 1 report. However, there is a strength of feeling from committee members on the issue, and I accept that, which is where the Government amendment takes us.

More broadly, creating a new NDPB to accommodate the accreditation function would contravene the Government’s public service reform position that no new smaller public bodies should be established. We must be mindful of costs to the taxpayer in that regard.

I would also argue that a decision to set up curriculum Scotland as a new body via an amendment without having done detailed analysis and consultation would be highly questionable, particularly given the significant policy, legal, financial and delivery risks. I will talk more about that when we come to group 20.

Finally, similar to some of the other options, amendment 295 risks the creation of further complexity in the national educational infrastructure, potential disruption to services due to the significant change involved, and potential changes in staff terms and conditions. I therefore ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move the amendment.

In summary, I cannot support the non-Government amendments in this group, as they are all a consequence of removing the accreditation function from qualifications Scotland. I ask that members take into account the full range of measures that the Government is taking to ensure an appropriate separation between qualifications Scotland’s accreditation and awarding functions. The measures proposed in the bill are significant and will, in my view, provide the necessary separation. In addition to the legislation, I have commissioned the chair of the SQA to advise on additional measures at an operational level to further strengthen that separation and to provide reassurance to the public and ���˿��� about the integrity of accreditation.

Nevertheless, I accept that this is a complex issue, and it is important that we get it right. That is why I have lodged amendment 73, which will ensure that the issue is revisited through a statutory review of the operation of the bill’s accreditation provisions. As currently drafted, that review would include the location and scope of the accreditation function—which was the point that I made in response to Mr Kerr—and it would draw on two years of operation of the provisions. Not only would that ensure a smooth transition to the new body and continuity of service provision, but it would enable us to consider the wider implications for the education and skills sectors. A report of the review would be laid before Parliament so that the committee could consider it.

I understand that members might have concerns about the two-year period being too long—indeed, I think that we have heard that already this morning—and I would be happy to work with members to reduce it. I hope that that answers some of Mr Greer’s points. This is a complex issue that covers many interests, and I am committed to ensuring that we get it right.

The Government’s amendment will enable us to have the detailed consideration that is required in relation to the location of the accreditation function, so that we can ensure that any changes reflect the interests of all those who use and rely on that function, which, as members know, go beyond the immediate education sector.

Therefore, I ask members to support my amendment 73 in preference to the other amendments in the group.

I am more than happy to recognise the points that Mr Greer has made and to give him that assurance.

Of course, I have been engaging with members on a cross-party basis throughout the stage 2 process in advance of today. I have not heard a clear, unilateral view from members on where accreditation should sit, but Ross Greer makes an important point. The Government amendment in this group compels Government to take action in relation to accreditation, so there has been movement from the Government in recognition of the strength of feeling of committee members.

More broadly, I have spoken about the risks associated with moving accreditation to Education Scotland. That would bring it closer to ministerial control, which committee members know is not supported by stakeholders. There could also be an issue with the alignment between the priorities of the agency, Education Scotland and the accreditation function, and there would be a change in employment status for staff. Therefore, I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move amendment 291 and the related amendments.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 295 seeks to remove the accreditation function from qualifications Scotland and locate it in a new body—called curriculum Scotland—alongside curriculum functions.

I cannot support amendment 295 for a number of reasons. The Government looked closely at the benefits of locating the accreditation function in a new, smaller, stand-alone NDPB and, although the proposal would provide an appropriate degree of independence from ministers, there were a range of factors against it.

As I alluded to in my response to Mr Greer, those factors included the fact that the start-up costs alone are estimated to be between £400,000 and £600,000. There would also be significant recurring costs for overheads and corporate costs such as estates, human resources, finance and information technology. In relation to all of those, the accreditation function currently benefits from being part of a larger NDPB. Under a new set-up and with additional functions, those factors would be much greater.

Similarly, as I highlighted earlier, it is clear that the accreditation function would not strategically align with the functions of curriculum, thereby creating unnecessary confusion within the system. We have all agreed that reform is about simplifying the system.