Chamber and committees

Part of that is for the Government, but it is partly about co-creation, too. The approach that we are taking is not about the Government dictating things, but about our stakeholders saying, “This is how ambitious we want to be, and this is where we want to go.” There was a lot of support for the charters in the consultation, particularly around the role of children and young people, but some concerns were raised about their potentially becoming a token gesture, and we might come on to talk about that.

We must have better transparency; that is the real purpose of the charters, and it is something that has probably been a challenge for the organisation in recent history. Therefore, the charters have to be co-designed with the groups whom they are intended to serve, and I think that that will answer the call for ambition, as all user groups need to be content with the co-design approach. It is not me, as cabinet secretary, who will decide the level of ambition—I think that that would be quite wrong. Instead, it is for those groups to come together and set their own aspirations. I imagine that they will be very ambitious, and we will have to respond to that.

No, not necessarily. I go back to the point that I made to the member at the start of this evidence session: if there are specific parts of the bill that the member thinks are deficient in some way, I am happy to work with her on looking at how we can strengthen them.

I have to come back to my original point, though, which is that the status quo is not working. We have to get this right. We have to reform the qualifications body, because I cannot deliver on the aspirations of Professor Hayward’s review unless we do this work. The body has to listen to the views of teachers and young people. It has not been able to fulfil those expectations in recent history, so how we reform and change it is really important.

Look, I am a politician, and I am quite sure that we will all disagree on parts of the bill, but there will also be areas on which we can make progress. However, if the member thinks that this area needs strengthening, I will be happy to hear any of her views further to that.

The member makes what sounds like a reasonable point. Again, I will defer to my officials.

Yes.

The solution to that, as proposed in the Muir report, is the shared inspection framework, which has been developed with HMI and the Care Inspectorate. Ms Don-Innes and I met HMI and the Care Inspectorate recently to discuss that, and that work is being taken forward.

You make an important point, convener. We are not doubling the workload here; instead, this is a shared approach to the inspection of early learning and childcare, which is unlike other parts of our education system. That is exactly why the Care Inspectorate sits alongside HMI in that respect. That work is being taken forward, and I am happy to write to the committee with further detail if that would be helpful.

I will bring in Clare Hicks on the practicalities of the advisory council and then come in to talk about how I envisage it driving improvement.

I just want to check, Mr Kerr, whether you are referring to the remainder of Education Scotland.

The member makes a reasonable point. I have no overt concerns with the financial memorandum as currently drafted—I see Clare Hicks indicating that she wants to come in, but I just want to say that the point is about additionality, and, if that is the case, we will get into party politics, which I do not really want to do in this evidence session. The question, though, is this: from where will that additionality come? Mr Kerr is right to say that if we want to drive meaningful change, we will have to resource it.

I am watching a number of UK Government budget lines. For example, I am watching what is going to happen with VAT, because the additional consequentials are apparently coming to Scotland. When? I do not know. I am watching for the 6,500 extra teachers that were promised down south and the consequentials that I expect to flow from that. I am watching for the breakfast clubs that were committed to and the consequentials that I expect to flow to my budget.

I do not disagree with Mr Kerr, but I am, to some extent, constrained. I do not want to be overtly political—although I probably have just been, convener—but I must ask this: from where in the Scottish Government’s budget should funding come, if Mr Kerr does not think that the present funding is appropriate? If he wants to specify that, I will be happy to look at it.

Clare, did you want to come in on the financial memorandum? We will set the party politics aside.

As cabinet secretary, I have met staff in all organisations on a number of occasions—and with their professional associations, too, I should say. Civil servants leading on the bill have engaged with staff throughout the process, and I think that there were staff sessions on the bill. In addition, trade union membership from the SQA sits on the transition board, so staff have been engaged throughout the process.

This has undoubtedly caused a degree of concern for staff, because they are going through a reform agenda. Our no compulsory redundancies commitment has helped in that regard, and we have tried to work with them throughout the process, but it has been an unsettling time for them. After all, we are talking about change.

I will bring in Clare Hicks, as she has indicated that she wants to come in.