Hansard

I was warned within an inch of my life to be very careful about the speech that I am delivering as the convener of the committee. Perhaps I may intervene later and give more personal opinions on the issue, if Mr Whitfield will allow—[Laughter.]—but I take on board the point that he made.

In our report, we make it clear that the measures to strengthen the separation of the awarding and accrediting functions are not strong enough and need to be enhanced, whether to the extent that they sit in separate bodies or remain within the same body but with appropriate structures and sufficient resourcing to ensure that the two functions are independent of each other.

In the cabinet secretary’s response to the committee’s report, she highlighted the advice that she had commissioned from the chair of the SQA

“to review the organisational design and leadership structures to further enhance the distinction between the two functions”.

She confirmed that that advice has been received. It would be helpful if she could give an indication of what that advice is and the options that she is considering as a result, either now or when she winds up the debate later.

The Scottish Government is currently chairing a short-life working group that is considering the scope of accreditation. In her response to the committee, the cabinet secretary set out details of the group’s work, which is welcome. In correspondence last week, she said that, through education reform and the bill, there is an opportunity to improve the oversight of qualifications. Does she anticipate that there will be amendments to the bill as a result of that group’s work?

As I have already mentioned, the SQA has often been criticised, over many years, for the way that it communicates with learners and educators. The committee understands that the bill seeks to enhance and formalise the roles of both groups, including the roles that they will have in the governance of the new body, qualifications Scotland. The committee agrees that that is important to those taking and those delivering the qualifications and assessments, and that they should be represented and included in the governance arrangements.

In our report, we sought more detail on the measures that are proposed for the governance of qualifications Scotland, including in relation to the membership of the strategic advisory council; on ensuring that registered teachers who are appointed to the board are current classroom teachers; and on ensuring that learners, teachers and practitioners make up the majority of their respective interest panels. The committee notes the cabinet secretary’s response on those points, including her commitment to lodge amendments at stage 2 to ensure that learners and educators are the majority group on the relevant interest committee.

The committee heard that a key component of the new qualifications body rebuilding trust in the sector would be to ensure that both learners and educators were consulted widely and inclusively, with clear feedback loops in place to report back on any action taken. However, we heard that, with some measures, such as the learner interest committee, the bill would largely formalise current engagement practices, some of which are practices that were criticised in the past. With other aspects, such as the strategic advisory council, the proposals in the bill substantially replicate the legislation that was established to create the SQA’s advisory council. As such, it was not clear to the committee how those measures would lead to an improvement in the governance of the new qualifications body.

In the cabinet secretary’s response to our report, she states that the learner interest committee will be

“a key, immovable and explicit component within the organisation’s governance structure”,

which has not been the case with the current Scottish learner panel. However, I am not sure that that is the reassurance that the committee is looking for, which is that things will be significantly different for the new body.

The committee also heard from many people about the importance of not only creating mechanisms to hear from learners but ensuring that such forums were age appropriate and supportive of meaningful participation. The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland young advisers group suggested that a young advisers group, similar to the model used by the CYPCS, be set up to influence the qualifications body, noting that

“most children and young people would feel better in a space only for children and young people”.

I note from the cabinet secretary’s response that the Scottish Government will, ahead of stage 2, consider the issue further and explore options to best ensure that the meaningful participation of children and young people indeed takes place.

Part 2 of the bill establishes the office of His Majesty’s chief inspector of education in Scotland. A key aim of the bill is to strengthen the independence of the inspectorate, but those giving evidence repeatedly stressed the importance of the inspectorate not only being independent but being seen to be independent, and the committee heard mixed views as to whether the current proposals provide sufficient independence.

Professor Graham Donaldson was head of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education from 2002 to 2010, when the inspectorate was last a single body, before it became part of Education Scotland. He stated that he had more operational independence then than the chief inspector of education would have under the terms of the bill. He called for amendments to “enshrine the independence” of the role of chief inspector.

The committee also heard calls for the bill to explicitly set out the purpose of the inspections that the inspectorate would carry out. The committee believes that that would be helpful and I would welcome the cabinet secretary clearly setting out the purpose of the inspections in her response to today’s debate. It would also be helpful to hear what types of inspections the inspectorate would realistically carry out. The committee appreciates that the bill provides the inspectorate with an opportunity to broaden its inspection programme beyond current school inspections. However, in practice, without increased resources, it is unlikely to be able to do that. The Scottish Government could manage expectations of the new inspectorate by confirming that it will be resourced to do more or by accepting that it will be largely resourced to the same level as it is now and therefore not expected to do much more.

In our report, we recognised the volume of people responding to our calls for views who expressed their frustration that the bill focuses purely on structural change and does not progress wider educational reforms such as those that the Hayward review proposed.

When the cabinet secretary came to the committee, she said that she could not deliver on the aspirations of the Hayward review without reform of the qualifications body. Therefore, it would be helpful if the cabinet secretary could give more detail on how she intends to deliver on those aspirations, providing that the bill is passed, and when she envisages such changes being made.

In our report, the committee agreed with the general principles of the bill. However, we believe that the bill will require substantial amendment to ensure that the improvements that the Scottish Government envisaged—in relation to engagement, governance, organisational culture and accountability—become a reality for learners, teachers and staff.

I look forward to hearing more, during the debate, about potential amendments from the cabinet secretary, members of the committee and members across the Parliament, because it is clearly in all our interests to ensure that the bill gets it right and leads to new bodies that hold the confidence of learners, parents and carers, and teaching professionals.