 Mae'r next item of business is a statement by Jenny Walruth on education reform. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, therefore there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on the cabinet secretary. I want to pay tribute to winning Ewing, a giant of her movement in the Scottish National Party, and to send condolences to our friends and colleagues, Annabelle and Ewing on the sad loss of their mum. I set out the vision and values produced by the national discussion on education three weeks ago. Two weeks ago, the Government published James Wither's report on the skills delivery landscape. Today, I will update Parliament on the final report of the independent review of qualifications and assessment led by Professor Louise Hayward. Next week, Parliament will receive an update on the purpose and principles for post-school education research and skills. There is a lot happening in the policy world of Scottish education, and that external context when considering the internal context in our classrooms at the present time is a point that I will return to in my statement. The independent review of qualifications and assessment is a detailed and comprehensive report that sets out 26 recommendations. It is a culmination of the work undertaken over the last year by Professor Louise Hayward and by her independent review group involving a wide range of stakeholders. I am grateful to Professor Hayward and to everyone who shared their views with the review, and I commend the inclusive and transparent approach that has been taken. The final report recommends that a Scottish diploma of achievement should be the graduation certificate offered in all settings where senior phase education is provided. The report suggests that all learners should be provided the opportunity to experience learning in the diploma programs of learning, project learning and a personal pathway. In respect to the programmes of learning, the review recommends that learners should continue to study subjects at vocational, technical and professional qualifications. A wider range of methods of assessment should be adopted, and the number of examinations in the senior phase reduced with removal of exams suggested at the end of S4. In project learning, the review explains that learners would have the opportunity to apply the knowledge and skills that they have developed in a real-world situation by undertaking a project or a significant question or problem important to them. The focus of the personal pathway is a reflection on learning, whether that be learning in school, in college or in the community. The purpose is to give learners the opportunity to personalise their diploma by selecting aspects of their experiences rather than reflecting their interests and the contributions that they make to society and their career aspirations. The review recommends that there should be a digital profile for all learners, which allows them to record personal achievements, identify and plan future learning. The report also highlights the need to support the system through any process of change, with phasing and timing linked to the resources available. The recommendations, if implemented, could represent very significant change to our qualification system offered by Scotland's schools and colleges. The recommendations for reform in this report could really amount to a radical shift in Scottish education. As Cabinet Secretary, I need to be certain that those changes are the right ones for Scotland's young people. To that end, and before I arrive at a conclusion on those proposals, I need to hear from our teachers, particularly our secondary teachers, who will be key to driving any changes that we deliver in the qualification system. I must also be mindful of that wider policy context, as I have outlined, with four substantive reports publishing within four weeks. Government now requires to provide an overarching narrative that ties those outputs together, to set that clear trajectory of travel and not to miss the inherent opportunities that exist. We also need to learn lessons on educational reform, as the report notes of curriculum for excellence when they ask for support, more guidance was developed, what teachers wanted was practical support. When I visit schools, it is not advice and guidance that teachers want, it is very often practical help in responding to things like additional support needs, behaviour in relationships post Covid and seeking to improve parental engagement. I need to be certain that our reform agenda is ambitious enough to deliver on that expectation. As we have discussed in the chamber in recent weeks, the culture in our schools has changed post pandemic, and we know that that is impacting on attendance. We also know that schools are responding to a cost of living crisis and to other external challenges from artificial intelligence to global instability. Both the Hayward report and the national discussion talk to this uncertainty. Government must provide leadership on reform, which addresses this new normal in our school communities. In evidencing that leadership, I have concluded that it is not the time to introduce legislation on educational reform now. Any reform that meets our ambitions for our young people will need to be bold, it will need to be holistic and crucially. It will have to be shaped by the expertise of our teachers. I am determined to give this process the time needed to ensure that that happens before bringing forward legislation in the next parliamentary year. The immediate challenges faced by the teaching profession in responding to our post pandemic school communities will not be helped by legislation, nor can I expect meaningful engagement on our future qualifications if Parliament is focused on legislating for those bodies. Instead, focus must be brought back to our children and young people and improving their educational outcomes. It must be on delivering excellent learning and teaching for all. That has to be the component parts of our education system working together in a spirit of partnership. We need to take this opportunity to design our national education and skills landscape in its totality to better support children, young people and our adult learners. Pre-empting what is possible in the context of the new bodies by drawing a narrower legislative focus at this stage would, I believe, miss that opportunity. If we are to deliver parity of esteem across the education system, then a holistic approach to legislation will be required. I recognise that this announcement will have an impact on the staff at the SQA and Education Scotland. I thank everyone in both organisations for their on-going work to support Scotland's young people. I reiterate, of course, the Scottish Government's commitment to no compulsory redundancies as a result of the reform process. I reassure Parliament that work to deliver the new national education bodies will continue nonetheless at pace, strengthened by this extended period of engagement. We already have plans in place to recruit a new chair of the SQA who will lead the transition to the new qualifications body. Establishing leadership for the new independent inspectorate is also critical. I want to start this process now and therefore take forward recruitment for HM's chief inspectorate of education. Both of those posts will provide enhanced leadership to support the establishment of the new bodies and also to ensure that we deliver change in both practice and in culture. As Cabinet Secretary, I will work together across parties in this Parliament to improve educational outcomes for all. This is a prize that is worse driving for us. It is vital that we get this right for the next generation. Throughout our education system, our learners, of course, are supported by excellent teachers and other professionals throughout their educational journey. We want that support to continue as the effects of the pandemic continue to impact on our young people and those of course that we entrust in their care. I very much recognise the continuing pressures facing our teachers and our wider education workforce at this time. As a first step, I want to work with local government partners to ensure that we have a comprehensive picture of the health and wellbeing support that is currently available and to identify how we can build on that. We also want to undertake a short, sharp review of the impacts that our regional improvement collaboratives have had in supporting our pupils and practitioners as part of our reform system. I will work with COSLA, the RICS and others in that review, which will conclude in October. Since taking up the post as cabinet secretary, I think that it is important that we assess the ideas coming out of the national discussion and independent reviews in more detail. My view on that as cabinet secretary is that there are a lot of reviews happening at a similar time, and it is important that we hear from the profession on the outputs of those reviews. I am determined that this process moves at pace and involves teachers and others working in education at the earliest possible opportunity. To that end, I have written to directors of education with a request to prioritise time to consider reform during in-service sessions in the new term. We will use the outputs from this feedback to provide a fulsome response from the Government, and I commit to returning to Parliament to fully debate the proposals in the review more extensively. Good teaching continuously assesses to monitor progress, and we entrust a graduate workforce to do just that. The report, of course, takes the view that final examinations in S4 should end. Some purport this to be radical, but since the introduction of the national fours back in 2013-14, learners taking these qualifications have already not been required to sit a final qualification. Critics at that time argued that devalued national four, and it is likely that this contributed to a level of over-presentation with more pupils being presented at national five qualifications, as this was considered the more robust qualification due to the final exam element. We like a test in Scottish education, and as Professor Gordon Stobart has observed, in comparative terms, Scottish upper secondary students are more frequently examined than those in other jurisdictions. That is a consequence of the tradition of offering three suites of examinations—national five, higher and advanced hires—during secondary years S4, S5 and S6. That is examination loading, not found in other jurisdictions. As a former teacher, I am fully supportive of more continuous assessment. Of course, that has to be managed appropriately, but a move away from high-stakes final exams will give a more holistic approach to assessment. It also means that our young people will not face a cliff edge. It is worth reflecting that the new national qualifications, as they originally operated, contained an element of continuous assessment through unit assessment, but the recording of outcome and assessment standards quickly became quite a burdensome bureaucratic task, which attracted from day-to-day learning and teaching. Ultimately, unit assessments were removed for that reason, but we need to learn lessons from that experience in designing with teachers continuous assessment practices that are proportionate, robust and enhanced rather than detract from learning and teaching. The independent reports by James Withers and Professor Louise Hayward have implications for learners of all ages across all settings—for teachers and practitioners, local and central government and our national bodies. I would like to use the coming weeks and months to take forward detailed examination of the proposals, allowing Parliament and others across the system the opportunity to engage with and shape our response. Our response has to be holistic to reflect a single clear expectation, namely that from this reform process we will have a coherent education and skills system, where every part works together and holds collective responsibility to deliver for learners of all ages. A coherent education and skills system that is focused on taking the best from our educational traditions, including our long-standing and well-recognised hires, and making sure that we build on that success to help our learners to go on achieving the very best that they can. Change in education is not always about inputs. In most, it is about the outcomes and about the lifetime satisfactions that come from every young person, every individual learner, being enabled to reach and often surpass their potential. In the end, we must judge everything that we do by those criteria, the need and the expectation of all those in our schools. If we can all agree on that, Scotland and Scotland's learners will be the winners. Surely that is worth working together to achieve. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Can I start by echoing the sentiments in relation to the passing of Winnie Ewing, obviously the first person to preside over this Parliament after its re-establishment in 1999, and send condolences to Fergus, Annabelle Ewing and the wider family? The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes after which we will need to move on to the next item of business, and I would urge Members who have not already done so, but wish to ask a question to press the request to speak buttons, and I call for Stephen Kerr. I wish to assault myself entirely with the sentiment that you have just expressed in relation to the passing of Winnie Ewing. I want to thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. I also want to thank her for the effort that she went to to reach out to the parties in this Parliament, but expecting Members to digest a 230-page report complete with summaries and appendices. An hour before we have the statement is obviously asking much of all of us. I hear the minister saying slacker, but it is a lot of reading, even if you divide it up. It would appear that the Minister for Parliamentary Business was more interested in abiding to protocol than he was to enhancing scrutiny. It is worth working together, but to do that we need to share our working. I want to thank Professor Lewis Hayward and everyone who worked with her to produce this review, and also the authors of the national discussion and the weather's review, and the Muir report. However, let me not pussyfoot around the issue. These reports and reviews combined with the output that we see from various sources are a damning verdict on 16 years of SNP Government. Based on the national discussion, I think that the cabinet secretary knows she has a long way to go in regaining the trust of teachers, parents and learners in delivering the practical support that she mentioned in her statement. The truth is that, after all those reviews and, I think, by her own word, we still have no clear sense of what the Government's strategy is or its direction of travel. Having said that, if Jenny Gilruth embraces the need for bold innovative and urgent change, that is better for learners, she will always have the support of those benches. I have four short questions, which I would like to give the cabinet secretary the opportunity to give short, four short answers. I can see the concern of the Deputy Presiding Officer. How does she assess the recommendations in the Hayward review will change the commonly diagnosed issues of the senior phase, such as the two-term dash, in teaching to the test? How does she envisage course assessment other than examinations would be externally verified? What does that assessment mean in terms of teachers workload? Does she agree that we must not do anything to diminish the standing or reputation of the higher and advanced higher in the eyes of employers and further and higher education? Does she agree that much more needs to be done to create parity of esteem for technical and professional qualifications in the education system overall? I thank Mr Kerr for his questions. I am not sure, Presiding Officer, that I will be able to give a detailed response, but I am more than happy to meet him on the substantive questions that he raises, because I think that there are important points. The first question that Mr Kerr poses relates to the two-term dash, of course, and I think that the report talks to the challenge implicit in having a system that we currently have, which is wholly dependent or largely dependent on a final examination. That is one of the reasons why the report recommends, for example, that we remove final qualifications or final exams rather at the end of S4. We can have a more continuous approach to assessment throughout the school year, and that might not be in one school year. It might be over the course of two years, for example, that it could remove the two-term dash. However, I think that it is really important that the practicalities of what is a very detailed report are now engaged with from the profession. I think that it is hugely important that I hear from the secondary teaching profession, because that will fundamentally change the type of learning and teaching and the pedagogy that exists in our classrooms, particularly in the senior phase, if we are looking at a move towards continuous assessment. The second thing that I would observe is that we always had continuous assessment. I was quite careful to make that point in my statement. It existed in standard grade, to an extent. We always had unit tests, for example. It existed in the kind of architecture around curriculum for excellence when the new national qualifications came forward, and yet we deviated back to a final exam system. Part of that related to the administration of the unit assessments, and I mentioned their removal. I think that that was a test of the exam system, and I think that it is hugely important that the new exams body, which will be key in that endeavour, works with the profession to deliver assessment criteria, which are not adding to workload and actually help to improve the type of learning and teaching we have in our classrooms. Mr Kerr asked three other questions. I will try to touch on them, Presiding Officer, mindful of time. I think that I have answered the question around workload. He talked about not doing anything to diminish higher and advanced, and I fully agree with that. I had a point about that in my summing up comments, Presiding Officer. I am really keen that we do not deviate, and we recognise the strength of Scottish education, particularly the gold standard in relation to our higher qualifications, but also parity of esteem. That is why we cannot read that report in a silo away from the recommendations from what James Wethers has said. It is really important that those outputs come together, and we deliver that overarching narrative. I thank Professor Hayward for her work, the people who engaged with it, and the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement and the conversation with us yesterday, although she agrees that it would have been far more helpful to see the report before one hour ago. The cabinet secretary has acknowledged that this report is another in a long list of reviews, which has left teachers, pupils and parents waiting and anticipating change for some time. Of course, understanding and reviewing problems is necessary for change, but I think that it is clear that what is needed now from the Government is leadership, clarity and action. I, as others will, welcome the breadth of the report and the cabinet secretary's commitment to put teachers at the forefront of reforms. As she takes the time to do that, there are significant questions around the suggested reforms that teachers, pupils and parents need. More answers from the cabinet secretary today. The report recommends the removal of S4 exams, but it leaves questions on how children leaving after S4 will demonstrate their achievements. Significant reductions in high-stakes exams will have a huge potential impact on teacher workloads, leaving teachers worrying that it could increase. To settle some of that uncertainty early, I would ask the cabinet secretary to consider this, especially in light of the commitment to reduce teacher contact time and to set out how the aspects of the reforms could work in that vital reform, too. I am going to have to ask the cabinet secretary. Both opening questioners have gone beyond the time allocation, which is going to eat into the time available for backbench questions. That is not acceptable. Cabinet secretary, can you respond, please? I think that Ms Duncan-Glancy and also Mr Kerr referenced that they have not had enough time to digest the report. I recognised the limitations around publishing an embargoed report before giving a statement. I did undertake in my statement to come back to Parliament to debate more fully the outcomes of the report, but to Ms Duncan-Glancy's fair question, which is in relation to the overarching narrative surrounding the four separate outputs. On the point that she makes about workload issues, I met trade unions yesterday to discuss that issue. It relates back to some of the points that I made in response to Mr Kerr, which are about the implementation of the administration of what continuous assessment looks like. When I reflect on my experiences of being in the classroom, 10 years ago, when we brought forward the new national qualifications, it became a bit of a tick box exercise, if I may say so. I think that the new qualifications body has a key role to play in that regard to ensuring that teacher workload is not increased as a result of those changes. If I may also say to the member that if we are looking to move away from high-stakes final exams, we will also need to look at the percentage allocation, for example, that is applied to the final examination and the overall awarding of the qualification. I do not think that, as Cabinet Secretary, in fact, I know that I do not have all the qualifications and expertise to make these decisions, but I very much trust Scotland's teachers to tell me so. They fed into the SQA's work in relation to developing the new national qualifications, and I fully expect them at a subject specialist level to feed into the work as we move forward with the recommendations from Hayward, because they have that subject expertise and they have the knowledge to ensure that we can deliver assessments that are balanced, but also that improve the learning and teaching that happens in our classroom assessment. We have 11 members. We want to ask questions. We have 12 minutes, so the questions and the responses will need to be as brief as possible. First, John Mason to be followed by Megan Gallagher. There can sometimes be a difference between what young people are wanting to learn from their education and what employers are looking for. Does the cabinet secretary think that we are getting the balance right in that area? I think that the question that the member poses is a really interesting one about the purpose of our education system. Is it just to prepare our children and young people for the world of work, or is it about giving them a well-rounded education that equips them with the necessary skills for life and is inclined towards the latter by accepting that what our employers need needs to be part of that broader consideration? We know now that we now have record numbers of young people going on to positive destinations, and I think that that is certainly evidence of progress. There has been good progress, but nonetheless we need to build on that, and that is why I think that we need to have a holistic approach to where we go next, which is absolutely the reason why the outputs from the James Wither's reviews need to be considered within that wider context in relation to education reform, particularly to answer the member's question in relation to the needs of employers in that wider skills base. We have had review after review of our education system. I think that we have had enough reviews to last this Parliament a lifetime. There is no strategy as of yet. From the statement today, more reviews will be undertaken before any direction will be given by the Scottish Government. Cabinet Secretary, I do understand that you have inherited a mess after 16 years of an SNP Government. There is too much bureaucracy, too many education bodies, and reforms that could bankrupt councils should this Government not fund them correctly. How many more statements will be made to this Parliament before we see legislation that will transform our education system? I agree to her to some extent in relation to the numbers of reviews and reports that have come to fruition at a similar time, but the member does a disservice to Scottish education when she describes it as a mess. We are starting to see real progress in relation to the poverty-related attainment gap closing. We are starting to see more young people going on to positive destinations, but I recognise the need for that overarching narrative that Government will provide. It is important that Parliament talks about those things, and that is why I have committed to come back to the Parliament to more substantively debate the outputs from this report, which, if enacted, could see radical changes for Scotland's children and young people. It is really important that we get that change right, and, as I committed in my statement, I will work across part of divide to ensure that that is what happens. None of those reforms are possible without our hard-working teachers who are the lifeblood of our education system. Unfortunately at the moment, many of them, especially those who have only served a couple of years' service, are struggling to obtain full-time permanent positions after the finish to probation. I have had numerous constituents raise this issue with me. This is leading to many young teachers leading the profession and, relatively, seek work abroad. In light of the recommendations of the independent review and, indeed, the national discussion, can the cabinet secretary outline what further reforms she will bring forward to ensure that our enviable teachers remain in our education system? I think that the member raises a really important question. She may remember that we faced similar challenges when I first qualified as a teacher in relation to staffing and how we can adequately attract people to the profession and ensure that they are in the right parts of the country at the right time. There are lots of different ways in which we can do that. For example, the Government offers a golden handshake for probation teachers who are prepared to go anywhere. I was one of them back in 2007. I think that that is an important part of how we can attract people into the profession. However, there are other things that we will need to consider. I have started a conversation with the GTCS on that a couple of weeks ago, and we have been undertaking further work on that through the Scottish Education Council to consider the role in relation to staffing. Ultimately, I say to Parliament that staffing in relation to teacher numbers is a matter for local authorities. We have provided additionality in that respect, so more than £145 million to protect increased teacher and support staff numbers. However, I commit to working with COSLA on that issue, because it is hugely important that we retain teachers in the teaching profession. In particular, given the fact that teachers in Scotland are now the best paid in the UK, we want to keep teachers in Scotland to help them to be part of the journey in relation to education. I welcome the fact that we have a statement that confirms that we are going to have a pupil-centred education system, and that we will also have a graduate workforce that sits in front of those. However, with regard to the educational reforms and the confirmation that she has made that there is now is not the right time to introduce legislation, does that mean that she has decided not to abolish the SQA, which is of course set up by the Scottish Qualifications Act. I thank the member for his question. No, the SQA will be abolished, it will be replaced with a new qualifications body, and I want to put that on the record for absolute certainty. My reading of the report, and I appreciate members, will not have time to go through the report in all of its detail. There are a number of recommendations that have a bit of read across in relation to the reform agenda on those new bodies and what that will look like. Then, of course, we have the wider report landscape, as I outlined in my statement to Parliament. It is important that we take account of both of those things through the legislative process, and I need to make sure that what comes next in relation to qualifications reform is fit for purpose. I think that legislating at this current time would not be the right thing to do, and that is why we have decided to pause for a year. However, to confirm with the member, we will be legislating to remove the SQA. I ask the cabinet secretary what more will be done to support the quality and consistency of the implementation of existing policies and practices that improve outcomes for children and young people. I think that Ruth Maguire is quite right to raise these issues, because while we look to a bold and ambitious reform agenda, we cannot lose sight of the key priorities in front of us right now. I will continue to work with Education Scotland, with our local authorities and others, as we seek to deliver the best possible outcome for our children and young people. Of the utmost importance to this Government is making progress in closing the poverty-related attainment gap, and our £1 billion investment in the Scottish attainment challenge is really designed to do exactly that, including empowering our headteachers to use pupil equity funding to best support the children and schools that are impacted by poverty in their locality. I share the education secretary's caution in terms of the implementation of this report. There is an awful lot going on in terms of behaviour, the pandemic, closing the poverty-related attainment gap, which we are not quite making as much progress as she indicates, but also raising an international performance. I am a bit concerned that she is delaying the reform of the national bodies by a year. It is important that the profession has confidence in the national bodies. I worry that if it is delayed, it will have a real problem in inspiring confidence among the teachers. Can she assure me on that front? My reflections on where Scottish education is at the current time—we have talked about this in the chamber at length in recent weeks—is that it is facing a number of challenges. We have talked about behaviour post Covid and the change in the culture in our schools. We have talked about excellence and whether any makes reference to international service, for example. I think that that is a hugely important step from the Government in rejoining those international services. It has also got to be about partnerships because our local authorities are key to delivering quality learning and teaching in our schools. We need to have the faith of the profession. The profession has been through quite a challenging time in relation to industrial relations. I am glad that we have been able to resolve that dispute. However, I now need to work with our teaching profession. What struck me as I have been going in and out of schools over the last couple of months is that I am not sure how many teachers have engaged with the national discussion and have engaged holistically with the outputs from the Haybridge review. I need to make sure that the teaching profession is engaged in the outputs of those reviews and that does have an impact in relation to reform. Reform absolutely is coming in relation to those bodies, but I absolutely have to work with the teaching profession in relation to driving those reforms forward. I cannot foist change against the teaching system. I think that I maybe know that better than others in this chamber. We have less than four minutes and we have five people who want to get in. I will call Rona Mackay to be followed by Ross Greer. Any future education reform must proactively remove practical or discriminatory barriers to learning. What consideration is the cabinet secretary giving to the needs of those who may feel excluded or marginalised within the current education system? I think that that is an important question from Rona Mackay. She is absolutely right. The reform agenda that I am committed to is one that has to secure better outcomes for all of our children. A crucial part of that will be ensuring that remaining barriers to learning for those who feel marginalised by the current system are removed. The Government is already taking steps to tackle specific barriers to education in relation to the work in the Scottish attainment challenge and the national improvement framework. Broadly, we have had good discussions in the chamber in recent weeks in relation to challenges on behaviour and relationships and we will be taking work on that forward only next week. I hope that the changes and the support across the system in relation to improving inclusivity will be a driver behind our need for reform. One of the key outputs from the national discussion was that we have a really inclusive system in Scotland. It is important that we use that strength to build on the changes that we seek to bring forward in regard to reform. I am delighted to ask the cabinet secretary if, as part of taking it forward, the Government will progress the review of indicators and measures associated with the curriculum to ensure not just sustainable teacher workload but that the curriculum matches up with any requirements of a move towards a continuous assessment model. I thank cross gear for that question. He makes a really good point in relation to teacher workload in particular. We cannot just assume that the current system is operating at optimum level and we need to critically look, as we take a brief pause in relation to legislation, at the current qualifications to ensure their fit for purpose and to ensure that they are not driving teacher workload. I am happy to take that suggestion from Ross Greer away in discussions yesterday with the teaching unions. They made this point very strongly to me that we need to consider the impact that any reform will have on relation to teacher workload. Fundamentally, we will not continue this assessment to drive better learning and teaching without high-stakes exams at the end. Where we will get to in relation to the reform agenda, we need to support the profession to get there. I think that that goes back to Willie Rennie's question in relation to the reform of those bodies. They will be key in driving the change that we need to see. I have got Sue Webber to be followed by Ben Macpherson. Cabinet Secretary, on the basis of your statement and the comment, it is not advice and guidance teachers want. It is very often practical help and responded to things like additional support needs, behaviour and relationships and seeking to improve parental engagement. I was under the impression that education Scotland role was to offer this practical help. If it is not, what are they doing? That member makes an interesting point. Education Scotland of course has a key role in that regard. One of the points that I was struck by when I was bringing together those reports in the last few weeks was the role of our regional improvement collaboratives, which is why also within my statement I talked to reviewing the role of our regional improvement collaboratives, who are staff of people in education Scotland, but are also supported by our local authorities. I think that it is important that improvement function is looked at to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Of course, the challenges that Ms Webber has played back to me are ones that I would expect education Scotland to support. It is important that we hear from the profession about how we could perhaps better support some of that work going forward. The independent review and the national discussion have undertaken significant engagement about necessary and appropriate modernisation. I wondered whether the cabinet secretary could elaborate on how, going forward, the engagement will continue. She rightly emphasised the engagement with the teaching profession, but I presume that engagement will continue also with learners, the business community and other relevant speakers. I thank Mr Macpherson for his question. As he outlined, we had really substantive engagement in relation to the work of the national discussion. It generated a level of enthusiasm for changing our system, which we have seen reflected in Professor Hayward's review, too. It is hugely important, as the member outlines, that that is not just about the teaching profession. It is key drivers in the system, but, of course, our children and young people have to be part of that discussion as well. They were very much part, I should say, of Professor Hayward's review, and they also fed in substantively to the national discussion. I expect to continue to work with our children and young people on the outputs from the reform in relation to our qualification system, but also to the member's point in relation to business, too.