³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

We see that as being largely for an administrative purpose, because it is important that the body is in the room at the same time that the groups meet. It is also important that, if the groups raise a challenge with qualifications Scotland, the body is there to respond to that challenge. Therefore, a qualifications Scotland staff member will be present for two reasons. It will have a representative in the room because it is its organisation, too, so it is important that it hears the challenge. It is there to respond. One of the key challenges that the SQA faces is that, arguably, it has not been responsive in the past, so let us try to manage that through the governance structures. The qualifications Scotland representative will not be there to be a voice for learners or teachers—that is not the approach that we would take to their presence in the room. It will have a representative present to respond to any challenge; largely, that will have an administrative purpose, because it is its body, too.

That is quite a contentious issue, in itself. As you have set out, Mr Rennie, the system is voluntary, except when it comes to Scottish vocational qualifications, which need to be accredited.

There will be a range of views on whether accreditation should be mandated. I am not going to give Mr Rennie a direct answer on that today; I will consider it. After all, taking such a decision would not be without consequences. I suspect that the main consequence would be to do with resource—which I do not have.

As a result, we need to be pragmatic about the realities of where we are. Would I, in an ideal world, look to mandate accreditation of all qualifications? I am not sure that I would, because it might have unintended consequences for a range of qualifications.

Fiona Robertson knows qualifications better than I do. She delivers a suite of different qualifications in a range of educational settings. It has probably grown quite naturally that accreditation is not mandated for every qualification that is offered. However, that is something that we will continue to consider. Moreover, I do not want to divorce the challenge from Mr Dey’s wider work on reform of post-school education, which is why the work of the short-life working group is really important.

I think that such an approach would affect qualifications in different ways, given that so many of the qualifications that are delivered by the SQA are not delivered in schools. Our focus today might mean that we are looking at this through a school-unit lens, so perhaps we should ask secondary headteachers to look at the issue in the future. I am not against doing so. My question, though, is always going to be this: how would that improve things for learners? How would it improve outcomes for our children and young people?

I am sorry, but that was not a point that I picked up on in the previous evidence session. Does that relate to the protection of vulnerable groups scheme and fitness for teaching?

I do.

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—