Seòmar agus comataidhean

Which part of the bill makes it clear that Education Scotland will be on the strategic advisory council?

At the risk of using the wrong language—I hope that I am using the right language—what is the intention of the cabinet secretary for those regulations and the parliamentary scrutiny of them?

This group of amendments is about making the strategic advisory council a credible, independent and inclusive voice in the governance of Scotland’s qualifications system. We in the committee have rehearsed that and, in the interests of time, I will not go into detail. However, that voice is incredibly important and has been lacking.

The amendments would protect the independence of the SAC by limiting qualifications Scotland staff representation and removing unnecessary Government involvement, ensuring that it could operate with integrity and objectivity.

Amendments 248 and 252 would broaden the representation on the strategic advisory council and strengthen the consultation duties, embedding the voices of learners, teachers, unions, parents, industry and care-experienced young people in the heart of the system. To build a qualifications system that works for everyone, we must ensure that decision making is informed by lived experience, professional expertise and the communities that the organisation serves.

The group also includes important practical changes, such as clarifying terms of office, aligning governance with that of other public bodies and reinforcing collaboration with other education bodies, including Education Scotland, which would support the effective and transparent leadership that is needed. Taken together, the amendments would help to ensure that the strategic advisory council was not just advisory in name but influential in practice, helping to rebuild trust in the system.

Amendment 245 would remove the provision for a representative of the Scottish Government to observe or participate in strategic advisory council meetings, in order to give the council the independence that it requires.

Amendment 246 would ensure that curriculum Scotland was a member of the SAC. Because of the discussion that we had last week, and we will discuss curriculum Scotland under a later group, I am not minded to move amendment 246 at this point, due to the undertaking that we all agreed about the accreditation function. However, we can talk about the amendment, of course.

Amendment 247 would bring in line the term of appointment of the convener and members of the SAC with other bodies that are controlled under the bill.

Amendment 248 would require the membership to include, but not be limited to, members who represent the interests of a wide range of stakeholders: learners, students, children and young people, teachers, college staff, trade unions, industry, higher and further education, parents, those with experience and knowledge of additional support needs, and other relevant agencies. I appreciate that that is quite a list, but we have to accept that, in education in Scotland, we need to ensure that we draw on the expertise of everybody who is around children and young people or in the education and employment sphere. That is what I have tried to do with amendment 248. In addition, it is necessary because, if the strategic advisory council is central to the new qualifications system, accountability will be crucial, and that must be to people who have direct experience in the system.

Amendment 249 requires that no more than 40 per cent of members of the SAC be members of, or staff who are employed by, qualifications Scotland.

At this stage, and for some of the reasons that my colleague Ross Greer outlined earlier regarding the language used, I am minded not to move amendment 240 but to look at how we can use some of the SCQF stuff that we have done to achieve something at stage 3.

However, I ask the cabinet secretary this: if it is not the responsibility of qualifications Scotland to simplify the system, whose responsibility is it?

I thank the member for that intervention and, as ever, for bringing absolute clarity to the discussion.

The point about asking the question and it being answered is really important. Part of my motivation for lodging the amendments was to ask the question and to get someone to do the work, because otherwise I fear that it will not be progressed. I can see huge benefits to progressing that approach, which is why I lodged these two amendments.

My amendments in the group seek to pick up on a number of points, which I will take the committee through.

We have heard from various organisations and people working in the education system of difficulties with data sharing that mean that there are questions not only about how we can expand access to measures such as free school meals but about how we can widen access for people from poorer backgrounds and people with protected characteristics and care experience. Some of the pilots that have been carried out, particularly those in the north-east, have identified that data-sharing arrangements can be a barrier to progress.

The other aspect that is important to mention is that a unique learner number might make possible a much smoother learner journey. The learner number would follow young people through their education. If, for example, they needed support in their exams, that requirement could be attached to the learner number. Another example would be of a young person with additional support needs moving to another school. That approach would remove some of the responsibility from families for being project managers in their children’s lives, which can be really tiring and cumbersome. It would also allow authorities and others to identify what that particular person needs or wants.

The learner number could provide strong coherence all the way through the education system from when a young person enters it in the early years to when they conclude their learning journey—if we ever conclude it.

Amendment 244 seeks to require that the strategic advisory council advise qualifications Scotland on whether the creation of a unique learning number and consequential data sharing between schools, colleges and universities would support the aims of education in Scotland. It is important to note that the minister and the cabinet secretary have recognised in committee that there could be value in doing that, but both of them stopped short of saying that they would progress that or try to put it in place. My amendment seeks to require that that work is done and enable us to get the Government’s view of that on the record. The approach would allow us to make a little more progress towards sensible data sharing and coherence in the system.

There is also the option of amendment 328, which would require the strategic advisory council to provide advice on whether the creation of a unique learner number and consequential data sharing between schools, colleges and universities would support the functions of the chief inspector.

Members have two options to consider on the approach. One relates to the strategic advisory council in qualifications Scotland and the other relates to the chief inspector. What I propose could be a useful role and function for both of them; they would probably have a view on those issues.

I support the amendments that my colleague Ross Greer has outlined. The amendments in this group would strengthen accountability by requiring qualifications Scotland to report publicly not only on the advice that it receives from the strategic advisory council but its response to it. Including that in the annual report would reinforce the council’s role as a meaningful check on qualifications Scotland’s work and ensure that stakeholders could see how their input was shaping decision making.

Amendment 284, in my name, would require any advice from the strategic advisory council and qualifications Scotland’s response to be included in the annual report. Amendment 283 is a consequential amendment to enable amendment 284.

I take the point, and it is important that we strike a balance in that regard, but recent history has taught us that we have to err on the side of caution and of forcing the culture, in a way that I think that we can, to give credibility, teeth and accountability to the charters. If we do not have something in legislation that says how the charters should be monitored and, indeed, enforced, and how people can be involved in their development, they could be just tokenistic documents as opposed to living and valuable tools that young people and others can use to give effect to their rights. I take the point about tick-box exercises, but I would say that, without my amendments, the charters themselves could become tick-box exercises or part of a tokenistic approach.

Amendment 255 requires qualifications Scotland to work with those consulted to prepare and publish the learner charter. Again, as I have said, that process should include learners at every stage of the charter development and publication process.

Amendment 256 specifies that the learner charter applies to people of all ages undertaking qualifications, while amendment 260 ensures that adult learners who are not covered by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child protections will nevertheless also have their additional needs recognised. Amendment 261 adds a requirement for qualifications Scotland to comply with the learner charter and to monitor that compliance, which will, again, strengthen the charter’s role.

Amendment 262 matches amendment 256 in replacing “persons” with

“children, young people and other persons”

to underline the fact that charters are relevant to all people of all ages who are undertaking qualifications.

Amendment 263 requires qualifications Scotland, when preparing the learner charter, to consult with parents and children and young people who are undertaking a qualification to ensure that the important voice of parents can continue to improve the charter’s development.

Amendment 264 requires qualifications Scotland to consult with people who use BSL, who have protected characteristics and who have additional support needs. I do not think that, at this point, I need rehearse the arguments as to why that is crucial.

Amendment 265 requires consultation with the qualifications Scotland board before producing the learner charter, so that we can get all of the relevant people on board in order to progress it appropriately, and amendment 266 requires qualifications Scotland to seek the view of the strategic advisory council and to revise the learner charter in line with any recommendations made by it. Amendment 268 is a paving amendment for later amendments.

Amendment 271 places a duty on qualifications Scotland to comply with the teacher and practitioner charter and to monitor its compliance.

Amendment 254 asks that the regulation-making provision outline

“the manner in which such concerns are to be raised”.

I take the point that the national qualifications body will set out and put in place a process for that, but does the cabinet secretary agree that the ways in which the body was or was not prepared to accept concerns in relation to the history exam caused significant concern in the sector, including in relation to how some history teachers were treated and how the exam and concerns about it were approached? Does the cabinet secretary accept that there should be some regulation from the Government to set out what is required, so that the qualifications body can at least set parameters around the Government’s expectations with regard to the manner in which such concerns should be raised and how the qualifications body should respond to them?

Indeed. The intention here is to recognise that the chief inspector must be independent of the Government. That is incredibly important but, as we heard in the evidence that was given to this committee, the bill does not recognise that.

I will speak to the amendments in the group that are in my name. Amendment 340 requires the chief inspector to share a copy of any report that is requested by the Scottish ministers and for it to be presented to the Parliament and to ministers at the same time.