Meeting of the Parliament 24 June 2025
I thank the cabinet secretary for that intervention, which I was prepared for. The cabinet secretary knows full well that the members of Unite in the Scottish Qualifications Authority would have preferred the accreditation and regulatory function to go to an entirely new body in the first place. In the absence of any planning, scoping or action from the Government or preparation for a proper qualifications system that puts young people’s future at its heart, Unite the Union recognises that a rushed job could be very difficult for its members, who have endured countless days, weeks, months and years of the Government’s dither and delay when it comes to properly reforming the education system. That is what Unite is not happy about, and that is why it is trying, at the very last moment, to convince the Government to do the right thing. As the cabinet secretary knows, that means moving the accreditation and regulatory function from the SQA into a new body.
Instead of supporting that, the cabinet secretary told members of the committee at stage 2 that she would take seriously Unite’s concerns about accreditation, that she would go away and think very carefully about it, and that she understood that the status quo—the function remaining in the qualifications body—was not acceptable. However, she brought along the chair of the current SQA to the cross-party discussions between stage 2 and stage 3. Regardless of members’ opinions on how impressive—or otherwise—one individual can be, in those discussions we were supposed to be considering where the Government would put accreditation, given that it had been told by the committee, experts and others that that function should not stay with the qualifications body. There is nothing in the bill that moves accreditation from that body into another body. That, to me, is a failure of reform—it is reform unfinished.
15:45The Parliament has the option over the next 48 hours—sorry, 24 hours; I do not wish to extend the debate for a further 24 hours—to legislate for a system that stands the test of time and in which the accreditation body for qualifications in Scotland is able to accredit school qualifications in the future, whether or not that includes the ones that the SQA accredits now. If we are reforming the curriculum and assessment, we need to know that the body that oversees qualifications is in a separate place from the one that awards them. We should have taken that opportunity already in the bill. Separation would future proof the landscape and would create a coherent system that could regain and enjoy the trust of pupils, learners, teachers, parents and employers.
Our amendments to create curriculum Scotland—amendments 8, 9, 10, 159, 162 and 164, as well as amendments 6, 7, 180 to 192, 250, 74, 254, 256, 262, 263, 264 and 312—give the Parliament plentiful options to do the job properly. I will come to some of those amendments and the rationale behind them when we debate a later grouping. All the options that we are presenting today give the Parliament the opportunity to create the structures for world-leading curriculum development and a separate body to host the accreditation of our qualifications.
However, if members are not supportive of our package to create curriculum Scotland but would like to deliver on the advice of experts and teachers and on the expectations of pupils and parents, they can support my other amendments, which would guarantee the separation of awarding and accrediting functions by moving the regulatory and accrediting function to the chief inspector’s office, to be overseen by a chief regulator. Amendments 158, 161, 163, 197, 199, 200, 207, 208, 225, 226, 277, 253 and 260, all in my name, would achieve that.
Presiding Officer, forgive me for cantering through the amendment numbers in the interests of time; I know that members will have studied the groupings and the marshalled list and will have an understanding of what the amendments do.
There are other amendments that the Parliament has the option to support to deliver on expert opinion and on pupil, parent and teacher expectations. Amendments 158, 161, 163, 209, 228, 252 and 261, also all in my name, would place accreditation in the office of the chief inspector without there being a chief regulator. I invite colleagues to also consider that option.
All those options would also create a committee for accreditation, to which the function would be accountable. That has been considered crucial by staff currently in the SQA and by external experts.
Separating the functions is not just the direction that Scottish Labour believes that we should go in; countless experts have said the same. I repeat that point, because it is crucial. The Education, Children and Young People Committee also agreed with that position at stage 1.
The cabinet secretary and members on the Government front bench are laughing. However, when we did not get this right in 2020, pupils from the poorest backgrounds had their grades downgraded. This year, there was a scandal after a history exam was allowed to continue even though experts raised concern after concern that, as Ross Greer indicated, the quality assurance function for that exam sat within the body that set it. The cabinet secretary and other members in the chamber may find that funny but I am sure that people who are watching the debate will not.
Jenny Gilruth rose—