Seòmar agus comataidhean

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Amendment 255, by agreement, withdrawn.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.

My amendments to section 6 aim to embed collaboration into the culture and the legal framework of Scotland’s education system.

The failures of the past, which have been documented, have resulted in a level of disconnected policy making that has meant that curriculum, learning and assessment, and qualifications have been somewhat kept in silos. We have ended up with a situation in which the curriculum has not always been driven by what young people want to learn in the classroom, what we need them to learn for the future or what the teaching profession and employers think that they should learn, but has been driven, in fact, by the needs of assessment. We have all recognised that, and it is one of the reasons why it is important that we take on board the reviews. My amendments in this group aim to begin to correct that situation.

My amendments 232 and 243 would establish a two-way duty of collaborative relationships between the new body, qualifications Scotland, and Education Scotland, so that we can create a system whereby, in effect, the assessment is driven by the curriculum rather than the other way round. That is really important. Although the organisations have standing relationships with different parts of the sector, we know that those relationships could be stronger and that, in places, they have fallen short.

A collaborative relationship between qualifications Scotland and Education Scotland is crucial. It is also what the OECD, and independent reports such as those by Ken Muir and Louise Hayward, said was needed, and it could enable progress towards a culture of collaboration and the coherence across learning, assessment and qualifications that most of us agree is needed.

My amendment 233 would strengthen the collaboration duty of qualifications Scotland by requiring it to work in collaboration with others, rather than to have “regard to the desirability” of doing so. Sometimes, we can get bogged down in semantics, but the bill’s language on collaboration is really important. To have a situation whereby national agencies that operate in the education landscape need only

“have regard to the desirability of ... collaboration”

is too weak. Amendment 233 would amend section 6(2) to say that qualifications Scotland “must work” with other bodies in order to create the coherence, collaboration and consistency in the system that everybody knows that we need.

I move amendment 232.

I intend to press amendment 234, because I think that I have support for it and I feel that it is an important amendment. I will not move amendments 235, 240, 237 or 239 at this point, on the basis that Stephen Kerr’s amendment is preferred and I think that it does what mine was seeking to do anyway.

On amendment 240, I am compelled by Ross Greer’s argument about the language of terms such as simplicity, simplified and constant simplification, and I am keen to work to find another mechanism or another way of saying what I think we both agree is necessary at stage 3.

The outcome will be the same, because I will not move amendment 240, but I am not as convinced by the cabinet secretary’s point about the responsibility for coherence.

If there are too many bodies organising different aspects of qualifications, there is no leadership. That is part of the problem that we have seen in education in Scotland. I am not convinced by the cabinet secretary’s argument, but I will work with Ross Greer ahead of stage 3 on an amendment that I think could carry the support of Parliament.

On the basis that the cabinet secretary is prepared to work with me to look at how we could have regard to developments in knowledge and skills, while looking at the language around that, I will not move amendment 235.

Amendment 234 agreed to.

Amendments 34, 235 and 4 not moved.

Amendments 54 to 56 moved—[Jenny Gilruth]—and agreed to.

Amendment 5 not moved.

Amendment 6 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Amendments 240 and 236 to 239 not moved.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

After section 7

Amendment 241 not moved.

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.

I thank the member for that intervention and apologise to you, convener, for the confusion about where we were in the debate.

I heard the cabinet secretary say that she was willing to take on board the points that my colleague Martin Whitfield just made. With that—because I am reasonable and prepared to listen to the debate on the broader aspects of how to deal with the issue when we discuss it in later groups—I seek the committee’s agreement to withdraw amendment 254. Moreover, I do not intend to move amendment 355.

Amendment 254, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 10—The learner charter

The amendments in this group make the process for reviewing concerns about qualifications clear and transparent, giving stakeholders a meaningful route to raise issues and seek redress. Formalising the review process and subjecting regulations to the affirmative procedure strengthen accountability and build a culture of responsiveness and continuous improvement in qualifications Scotland.

Amendment 254 introduces a new function and requirement for qualifications Scotland to review any

“concerns relating to a qualification”

and introduces regulation-making powers for the ministers to set out that process. I do not need to remind committee members or people watching of the issue that we recently experienced in higher history, in relation to which this approach could have been incredibly useful. The effect of the amendment would be to give recourse to those with concerns about a qualification, and it would also contribute to an improved culture of transparency, which I think is sorely needed.

Amendment 355, which is consequential on amendment 254, confirms that regulation-making powers will be subject to the affirmative procedure, giving the Parliament the scrutiny power that it might need.

I move amendment 254.