Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.