Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will start where Ross Greer left off, because I understand his concern about the regularity of meetings. If a meeting were to be put in just because it had to happen, that could become quite cumbersome. I will listen to what others have to say about that, but I take his point seriously.

This group of amendments is about embedding a culture of meaningful consultation. We have spent quite a lot of time this morning talking about the importance of consultation and collaboration by the national qualifications body, and the amendments seek to strengthen those things in order to overcome some of the concerns that we have had in the past about the SQA, perhaps, digging in its heels with regard to whether it should be talking to other people or taking on board their views. This is an attempt to try to avoid that happening again.

I get that culture change is difficult to legislate for, but there are lessons that we have to learn, and I see no reason why we would not put something in legislation to give a nudge, at the very least, to the relevant culture that we are hoping to achieve. That is the purpose of the amendments in this group.

My amendment 242 strengthens the consultation duty between qualifications Scotland and the strategic advisory council by requiring them to meet at least once a quarter—notwithstanding the point that I have just made about the timescales, which I am prepared to consider as the debate goes on—and, additionally, at any time that either party considers it necessary.

The amendment also removes the caveat that qualifications Scotland need only consult the SAC where it appears appropriate for it to do so. Again—and this is much like our previous discussion—the SQA might have felt in the past that it was not necessarily appropriate for it to consult particular organisations or bodies that all of us would probably have accepted that it would have been useful for it to have consulted. Therefore, amendment 242, in my name, takes out what I suppose is a sort of get-out clause for the qualifications body.

There is also an opportunity to trigger consultation with qualifications Scotland and the SAC. It means that, if we again find ourselves in the sort of situation that we had with higher history, there is an opportunity for the advisory council to say, “We need to have a meeting to discuss this”—bearing in mind the council’s role and who would be on it—and the same would apply in the other direction, so that qualifications Scotland could seek the council’s advice.

I think that that is crucial, given that the SAC is intended to be a much-needed platform that will include the voices of learners, teachers, practitioners, parents and other stakeholders representing wider society—voices that I think have been missing in the past. We must do everything that we can in the bill to create the structures that will develop the culture that we know is desperately needed, and the amendment makes it clear that Scotland’s new qualifications body would be publicly accountable to those whom it serves and would give a place to the lived experience of learners and their families. Therefore, I urge members to support amendment 242.

We are minded to support many of Ross Greer’s amendments in the group. Martin Whitfield’s comments about committees are important and we have to remember what the role of Parliament is. Nonetheless, as he and Ross Greer recognised, too often the recommendations of committees, such as this one and others, can be cast aside. We do a lot of work and we hear from a lot of people. It is important that, at the very least, due regard to should be paid to them.

On the basis that the cabinet has secretary suggested that we work together at stage 3, I will not move the amendment.

Amendment 282 and 132 not moved.

Amendments 35 and 71 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

Section 15—Annual report of Qualifications Scotland

This part of the legislation is incredibly important and speaks to the point that, in the past, there has been a lack of voice for both learners and practitioners in the system. The charters seek to address that, and the amendments in this group strengthen that approach by putting voice, accountability and participation at the heart of the qualifications system.

The charters are not just symbolic documents—they have to be living tools that articulate what learners, teachers and practitioners can expect and how those expectations will be met. The amendments that I and others have lodged strengthen the charters by ensuring that qualifications Scotland works with the most affected, not just to write the charters but to revise, monitor and comply with them.

My amendments embed a culture of consultation that is meaningful, inclusive and continuous—a theme that the committee has discussed at length this morning—especially, and importantly, for those who are left out of policy development, such as care-experienced learners, British Sign Language users and others. The amendments also provide for regular review every three years, so that the charters can stay relevant to learners’ real experiences and do not gather dust on a shelf.

Accountability in the system matters—and I think that, in saying that, I probably speak for most, if not all, of the people around the table and those watching our deliberations today. That is why my amendments require qualifications Scotland to report on any failure to meet the charter’s expectations and to explain what it is going to do to address that. Whether someone is a young person at school, an apprentice, a college lecturer or an adult returning to learning, the charters will be their guide, their guarantee and their voice in the system, and they will be crucial in that respect.

I think that we can all agree that this is a pretty defining moment in the work to reform Scotland’s education system. It is important that the committee and the Parliament approach all the decisions that we take about it very seriously. We have had much discussion on the amendments to the bill that explored how we can bring clarity and coherence to the system and create a system that is not driven by assessment and, instead, is driven by the curriculum and by what learners and employers need in the future.

My amendments in the group seek to address that point. As it stands, the bill fails to grasp what was said by the OECD, Professor Graham Donaldson, Professor Mark Priestley, Professor Kenneth Muir, the international council of education advisers and, most importantly, all Scotland’s teachers, which is that it is absolutely crucial that we do more to ensure that the curriculum and assessment functions work in a more suitable way for learners in Scotland. We were promised that the bill would do that sort of reform, but it was silent; Education Scotland’s functions are only being brought into the bill through amendment.

The amendments are not about adding complexity; they are about removing duplication, confusion and contradiction by creating a dedicated body to lead on the curriculum, as the stage 1 report and many experts have called for. This would be a coherent system that would ensure that the curriculum drives qualifications and not the other way around.

Unsurprisingly, on amendment 245, for probably the opposite reason to the one that was given by the cabinet secretary, I think that it is important that the strategic advisory council can operate without the undue influence of the Government.

Amendment 246 seeks to stipulate that one or more members of the council must also be a member of curriculum Scotland. For the reasons that I gave earlier, and given that we are all open to discussing at stage 3 the accreditation function, where that would sit, and the national landscape, I will not move amendment 246. I note that, in Ross Greer’s contribution on amendment 246, he ruled out supporting the creation of such a body, but I hope that that approach will soften between now and stage 3, so that we can have the discussion on the accreditation function and look at all the options on the table, so that stage 3 can give us the solution that we require on accreditation.

On amendment 247, which states that council members are to be appointed for a period of four years, I understand the cabinet secretary’s points on terms of office but, in the past, there has been inertia and we have had circumstances in which decisions have not been fleet of foot or responsive enough to a wide-ranging and fast-changing education system. It is therefore important that, at the very least, appointment is reviewed every four years. The amendment contains the opportunity of reappointment for a further period of four years, and I am keen to test that at stage 2.

On the basis of the contributions that I have heard from Ross Greer and the cabinet secretary, I am prepared not to press amendment 248 at this point and to discuss potentially refining that amendment at stage 3. However, it is crucial that we give some indication of the Parliament’s recommendations and requirements of the strategic advisory council. The organisations and representatives that I have outlined in amendment 248 all have a crucial stake in our education system, and they need to have a voice on the council. However, I take the point about some of the named organisations and about looking at that again at stage 3—I think that the cabinet secretary is willing to look at that.

I am not sure that using the negative procedure would give me confidence that the Parliament had sufficient ability to scrutinise the regulations. I might be inclined to encourage the use of the affirmative procedure for such regulations, but I am prepared to not move amendment 248 and to discuss the matter ahead of stage 3.

I am prepared to not move amendment 249, on the basis of the discussion that we have had. I wanted to test the tolerance figure, but I lodged the amendment before I saw the other amendment that provides that no members of staff of qualifications Scotland can be on the council, which I also support. Therefore, I will not move amendment 249.

On amendments 250 and 251, I did not hear from the cabinet secretary that anything in the bill would require consultation with Education Scotland, but I heard the point about the regulations providing for that. On that basis, I will not move amendments 250 and 251, but I go back to my previous point about Parliament being able to scrutinise the regulations and about who is involved, which is incredibly important.

On amendment 252, I take on board the points that the cabinet secretary and Ross Greer made about how to achieve that networked approach. It is incredibly important that we do that. We have a hierarchical system when it comes to involvement and engagement with the front line. The distance between what happens in schools and policy direction is too broad and the middle is too cluttered, which we must address. Amendment 252 could have done that, but I am prepared to negotiate ahead of stage 3 to agree an amendment for the Parliament’s approval so that we can address the issue in the bill.

Amendment 253 would define “registered teacher”, “college teaching staff” and “relevant qualification”. I do not think that it would be a bad thing to define those terms in the bill, so I am minded to move that amendment. I do not think that it relates to any of the amendments that I have said that I will not press or move.

I start by setting out my rationale for which amendments I will press or move and which I will not in this particular group. I have listened carefully to everyone who has responded, and I think that I can hear a consensus developing around the need for co-production, co-design and consultation. In that respect, I hope that, when we come to consider the relevant amendments, my decision on whether to press or move them will be reflected in the numbers. I will not move or press my amendments in that regard in order that we can work together across parties at stage 3 to bring out some consultation or co-design process. Amendment 255 is the start of that, so I will not press it.

However, I would like to move the amendments on compliance, which I think are important. The points on monitoring are welcome, and I hope that I can get support for amendment 285 in that respect.

On the amendments on parents and young people, I support Miles Briggs’s amendment 130 and I recognise the points that have been made about co-design and co-production.

My amendment 278, which would require the additional level of scrutiny that we spoke about a moment ago, is important, and the committees that it refers to have a key part in that scrutiny, so I am minded to move it.

My amendment 275 specifies people who should be consulted about the post-school learner and practitioner charter. It is important that we get those voices heard throughout the process. However, again, I would be prepared to work at stage 3 to see whether we can get consensus on improving the drafting of the amendment, as long as we keep the principle that those broad groups of people need to have a say in what the charters do.

I spoke briefly about my amendment 285 a moment ago. If qualifications Scotland fails to satisfy expectations, it should say why and what it will do about that. That could be considered to be a bit of a compromise amendment on compliance, and I hope that I can get support for it. However, as I said, I will test the point on compliance at this stage. With that, I conclude my remarks.

Amendment 255, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 256 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to.

Amendments 257 to 260 not moved.

Amendment 261 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].

In the interests of time, I will be as brief as I can. My colleagues Sue Webber, Willie Rennie and Miles Briggs have spoken about the chief inspector’s independence. We have heard a lot of evidence in committee about that, and the evidence that Sue Webber cited a moment ago from Professor Donaldson, about the independence of the chief inspector, was compelling.

The amendments seek to rebalance the relationship between the Government and the scrutiny function by making the chief inspector accountable to the Scottish Parliament, which is the right forum in the interests of transparency, oversight and public trust. Recent reforms to other scrutiny and oversight bodies have, rightly, focused on reducing direct ministerial control, and it is only right that Scotland’s education inspectorate be held to the same standard of democratic independence.

This is not about weakening accountability; it is about putting the accountability in the right place. Ministers should not oversee the body that scrutinises their own practice. The chief inspector must have the freedom to act decisively, report openly and enforce change when needed.

Unsurprisingly, on amendment 245, for probably the opposite reason to the one that was given by the cabinet secretary, I think that it is important that the strategic advisory council can operate without the undue influence of the Government.

Amendment 246 seeks to stipulate that one or more members of the council must also be a member of curriculum Scotland. For the reasons that I gave earlier, and given that we are all open to discussing at stage 3 the accreditation function, where that would sit, and the national landscape, I will not move amendment 246. I note that, in Ross Greer’s contribution on amendment 246, he ruled out supporting the creation of such a body, but I hope that that approach will soften between now and stage 3, so that we can have the discussion on the accreditation function and look at all the options on the table, so that stage 3 can give us the solution that we require on accreditation.

On amendment 247, which states that council members are to be appointed for a period of four years, I understand the cabinet secretary’s points on terms of office but, in the past, there has been inertia and we have had circumstances in which decisions have not been fleet of foot or responsive enough to a wide-ranging and fast-changing education system. It is therefore important that, at the very least, appointment is reviewed every four years. The amendment contains the opportunity of reappointment for a further period of four years, and I am keen to test that at stage 2.

On the basis of the contributions that I have heard from Ross Greer and the cabinet secretary, I am prepared not to press amendment 248 at this point and to discuss potentially refining that amendment at stage 3. However, it is crucial that we give some indication of the Parliament’s recommendations and requirements of the strategic advisory council. The organisations and representatives that I have outlined in amendment 248 all have a crucial stake in our education system, and they need to have a voice on the council. However, I take the point about some of the named organisations and about looking at that again at stage 3—I think that the cabinet secretary is willing to look at that.

I am not sure that using the negative procedure would give me confidence that the Parliament had sufficient ability to scrutinise the regulations. I might be inclined to encourage the use of the affirmative procedure for such regulations, but I am prepared to not move amendment 248 and to discuss the matter ahead of stage 3.

I am prepared to not move amendment 249, on the basis of the discussion that we have had. I wanted to test the tolerance figure, but I lodged the amendment before I saw the other amendment that provides that no members of staff of qualifications Scotland can be on the council, which I also support. Therefore, I will not move amendment 249.

On amendments 250 and 251, I did not hear from the cabinet secretary that anything in the bill would require consultation with Education Scotland, but I heard the point about the regulations providing for that. On that basis, I will not move amendments 250 and 251, but I go back to my previous point about Parliament being able to scrutinise the regulations and about who is involved, which is incredibly important.

On amendment 252, I take on board the points that the cabinet secretary and Ross Greer made about how to achieve that networked approach. It is incredibly important that we do that. We have a hierarchical system when it comes to involvement and engagement with the front line. The distance between what happens in schools and policy direction is too broad and the middle is too cluttered, which we must address. Amendment 252 could have done that, but I am prepared to negotiate ahead of stage 3 to agree an amendment for the Parliament’s approval so that we can address the issue in the bill.

Amendment 253 would define “registered teacher”, “college teaching staff” and “relevant qualification”. I do not think that it would be a bad thing to define those terms in the bill, so I am minded to move that amendment. I do not think that it relates to any of the amendments that I have said that I will not press or move.

This part of the legislation is incredibly important and speaks to the point that, in the past, there has been a lack of voice for both learners and practitioners in the system. The charters seek to address that, and the amendments in this group strengthen that approach by putting voice, accountability and participation at the heart of the qualifications system.

The charters are not just symbolic documents—they have to be living tools that articulate what learners, teachers and practitioners can expect and how those expectations will be met. The amendments that I and others have lodged strengthen the charters by ensuring that qualifications Scotland works with the most affected, not just to write the charters but to revise, monitor and comply with them.

My amendments embed a culture of consultation that is meaningful, inclusive and continuous—a theme that the committee has discussed at length this morning—especially, and importantly, for those who are left out of policy development, such as care-experienced learners, British Sign Language users and others. The amendments also provide for regular review every three years, so that the charters can stay relevant to learners’ real experiences and do not gather dust on a shelf.

Accountability in the system matters—and I think that, in saying that, I probably speak for most, if not all, of the people around the table and those watching our deliberations today. That is why my amendments require qualifications Scotland to report on any failure to meet the charter’s expectations and to explain what it is going to do to address that. Whether someone is a young person at school, an apprentice, a college lecturer or an adult returning to learning, the charters will be their guide, their guarantee and their voice in the system, and they will be crucial in that respect.

My intention is not to compel the sharing of specific data. This is about creating the landscape in which data sharing could be promoted more easily.

A lot of the support for this sort of approach has come from further and higher education institutions and comes out of the pilot programme looking into how we could include information for the widening access programme beyond just the Scottish index of multiple deprivation. My understanding is that the institutions would be supportive of this approach.

As I said, the amendments would not compel them to share particular data. The suggestion is that a unique learner number could smooth the way for the future development of such data sharing, if that was required.