Seòmar agus comataidhean

Would the regulations be laid under the affirmative procedure? Is that appropriate? Would they be made under the negative procedure? What say would the Parliament have over the regulations on the membership?

I thank the convener for inviting me to speak. I ask for two seconds to get my notes up to support my contribution.

As Ross Greer has already pointed out, my amendments in the group would change the name of the advisory council to “governing council”. This is about building a stronger, more independent and more accountable system of governance around the education inspectorate, turning it into an organisation that is trusted by the profession and the public alike. Renaming the advisory council would signal a fundamental shift from a body that advises to one that helps to govern.

This is not just semantics, although I appreciate that members might consider that to be the case. I take Ross Greer’s point about the word “governing”, but I am talking about reinforcing the independence and legitimacy of inspection. If inspection is to lead to real improvement, it has to reflect the realities of the classroom, not the corridors of government. Amendment 326 proposes that we give teaching professionals a majority on the governing council to ensure that those who are closest to learning help to shape how it is evaluated. Aside from the renaming amendments, that is my main amendment in the group.

Trust in inspection comes from transparency, credibility and the practitioner voice. The amendments take a vital step towards restoring that trust by creating a governance model that is representative, authoritative and independent. Amendment 311 would change the name of the advisory council to “governing council”, and amendments 314, 324, 325, 327, 329, 330, 335, 336, 343 and 352 are consequential.

Finally, amendment 326 would create a majority on the governing council of teachers and college teaching staff to reinforce the need for the inspection function to represent and respond to the current and evolving needs of learners, teachers, college teachers and training providers.

Amendment 326 is just about providing a majority; it is not about entirely filling the positions, so there would be space for others on the advisory council.

In principle, I support what the member is trying to do, so I am encouraged to hear that there is potential scope to incorporate such a change at stage 3. I agree with Willie Rennie that we could look at the question of accreditation more generally and what we will do with the structures.

Although we have had much discussion about the bodies, where we might place the accreditation function and whether we should have a new body, we really need to go into stage 3 with options available to us. We should incorporate what the member has tried to do in the amendments, but not until stage 3.

It is the intention that the reports that are requested by the Scottish ministers would be shared. I take the point about the numbers that are involved, and I am happy to reflect on what that could mean and come back to the issue at stage 3. I appreciate the member’s contribution.

Amendment 342 requires the chief inspector to share a copy of their annual report, to be presented to the Parliament and to ministers at the same time. Amendment 345 requires the chief inspector to share a copy of the report on the performance of the education system, to be presented to the Parliament and to ministers at the same time. Amendment 349 requires the chief inspector to share a copy of any other report, to be presented to the Parliament and to ministers at the same time. Given what Ross Greer has just put to me, I will reflect on his point before stage 3 in relation to amendments 340 and 349. Nonetheless, amendments 342 and 345 are important.

All of those amendments would give Parliament an opportunity to have real scrutiny of the education system in Scotland. I recognise the important role that the chief inspector of education plays and the importance of the role having a strong degree of independence from the Government. Hence, I support a number of the amendments in the name of Sue Webber—in the interests of time, I will not list them all—that strengthen the independence of the chief inspector by, among other things, making several functions accountable to the Parliament rather than to ministers.

However, there are some aspects of the role of the chief inspector that should not be politicised in the way that being accountable to the Parliament might make them. Therefore, I cannot support Sue Webber’s amendments 146, 153, 154 and 155, which relate to matters such as the terms and conditions of staff employed in the chief inspector’s office. Those should continue to be determined with the approval of ministers.

A number of Willie Rennie’s amendments are direct alternatives to amendments in the name of Sue Webber that I support, so I cannot support them.

Stephen Kerr’s amendment 307 seeks to insert a provision that is already covered by wording in the bill, so I would be interested to hear why it is thought that the amendment is needed. At this point, I am not convinced that it is.

Amendment 187, in the name of Sue Webber, relates to powers of entry and inspection in respect of a dwelling house. I am not against it, but given that we have not heard any evidence on—

In my opening remarks on this group, I forgot to mention an entire amendment in my name, but Stephen Kerr and others have picked that up, so I thank them for that. Amendment 354 describes what the SCQF Partnership is and sets that out.

I have listened carefully to the discussion and will pick up on a couple of things. I note that my colleague George Adam made a point about Ken Muir’s understanding of the SCQF Partnership. Ken’s report says that the feedback that he received indicated that giving an enhanced role to the partnership would improve support for learner journeys and that,

“In particular, it was felt that SCQF has the potential to play an enhanced role in Scottish education to support all learners progress seamlessly on their learning journeys, recognising and valuing different types of learning (formal, informal and non-formal) and ensuring greater parity of esteem across qualifications and awards.”

Professor Muir is clear about the value of the partnership.

On the basis of the cabinet secretary’s offer to work together at stage 3, I am happy not to press amendment 232 or move amendment 234.

I am not convinced that it would be useful to allow that level of flex, as I might call it, so that qualifications Scotland could decide whether or not to work with a group of people. In the past few years, we have seen a complete failure of the national qualifications body to collaborate well. It worries me that we would weaken that duty.

We are supportive of Ross Greer’s amendment 3.

My amendment 230 seeks to place a duty on qualifications Scotland to make arrangements to ensure the quality of the qualifications that develop under the terms of the legislation. The questions that we have had in recent weeks and months about specific qualifications—higher history is an example—are such that we need to ensure as much robustness, credibility and trust in the system as we possibly can.

There is a gap in the bill in that respect, because it does not include a clear mechanism for safeguarding such standards. As such a mechanism is important, I have lodged amendment 230 to ensure that qualifications are consistently high in quality and are credible. I believe that that will command the confidence of learners, employers and the public, which is exactly what the reforms should be doing.

I agree that there would need to be parliamentary scrutiny, and the affirmative approach would be appropriate. One reason why the regulation aspect was written into the amendment was because I recognised that I was doing it at stage 2, which is not ideal. As I think I have made clear, I would have preferred it to be set out by the Government, through its taking into consideration all the recommendations of the independent review.

Notwithstanding the point that we will all return to this discussion before stage 3, will the cabinet secretary set out how the Government will therefore implement the suggestions in the Muir review around creating a national body for the curriculum?