Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Yes, I would be supportive of ensuring that equality in both directions. I hope that we will all have the time and headspace to turn our attention to amendments to that particular bill in due course. I will remind myself of this conversation at that point, as it would be entirely sensible to make the cross-reference.

My amendment 239 strengthens qualifications Scotland’s collaboration with Education Scotland to ensure that it is cognisant and takes account of recommendations from Education Scotland. The cabinet secretary made a point earlier about changes in the curriculum. That has to drive assessment and I think that we can all agree with that. The amendment seeks to strengthen that collaboration and make sure that the direction of travel is the right one, so that our young people are learning in the curriculum what they need for the future, as opposed to learning just for tests.

I move amendment 234.

That gets to the heart of what, last week, probably all of us agreed needs to be considered about what we do with the accreditation function. I fundamentally believe that we cannot continue to do that after this bill. If we do not get the bill right, we will have failed a group of young people, because we will have to start again.

I wish that the bill had included some of it in the first place but it did not do so; I made that clear in our stage 1 debate and in the amendments that I have lodged so far. On the basis of our discussion last week—in that, at stage 3, we will consider how the options for accreditation could look—I am still hopeful.

We have spoken about the SCQF Partnership, the inspectorate, Education Scotland and a new body, which, for the purposes of my amendments, I have called curriculum Scotland. On that basis, I do not intend to support Stephen Kerr’s amendment 290 at this stage, if it is pressed, not necessarily because I do not agree with its specific detail but because if, at stage 3, we look at one of those options, it would be neater to do it all at that point. I encourage Miles Briggs not to press amendment 290 on behalf of Stephen Kerr.

I whole-heartedly agree, and that is the reason why amendment 233 is important. If the cabinet secretary is minded to intervene on me, she might be able to respond to the point that she had to make to Ross Greer.

The conversation around data sharing is, of course, a complicated one; I think that we all understand that, including me. That is one of the reasons why the amendments seek to ask the qualifications body, or the inspectorate, to look at whether doing either of the things that the amendments propose would be useful for progressing education in Scotland.

I also think that the unique learner number has broader benefits than just the enabling of data sharing. However, it would be an important aspect of what we could do to bring coherence to the learner journey.

I take the cabinet secretary’s point about the candidate number. As she has identified, there are other ways in which we could track the pupil experience. However, there are too many different ways in which to do that, and my attempt is to bring one way into the system.

On the basis of the cabinet secretary’s tentative preparedness to discuss at least the learner number, if not the data sharing aspect, I will not press amendment 244, and I will not move amendment 328 at stage 2, but I would like to discuss the matter further ahead of stage 3.

Amendment 244, by agreement, withdrawn.

Whether we are talking about the expectations or the detail of them, the fact is that, without these amendments, no compliance with the charters will be required. I am prepared to consider at stage 3 the literal point about whether the wording should mention expectations, but I suspect that there might be a broader discussion about whether those amendments would garner support.

Amendment 272 would require qualifications Scotland to consult the qualifications Scotland board before producing the teacher and practitioner charter, while amendment 273 specifies a range of interested parties whom qualifications Scotland would have to consult in preparing that charter. Amendment 274 would require qualifications Scotland to seek the view of the strategic advisory council and to revise the charter in accordance with any recommendations that the council made.

Amendment 275, which seeks to recognise the distinct needs and requirements of learners, teachers and practitioners in the post-school environment, is, I think, a really important amendment that would address the situation that would arise when staff in colleges and other institutions, as well as students, were concerned about the practice of not marking people’s exams or coursework as a result of industrial action. It is important that we put in place expectations so that learners and staff in those establishments are clear about what they can expect, in order to close some of the gaps that I think would exist if we did not add a post-school learner and practitioner charter to the bill. That is why I think that amendment 275 is so important.

Amendments 276 and 277 would ensure that the charters were reviewed every three years instead of every five. I am seeking to change the review timescale because, if the charters were reviewed only every five years, such a review could end up happening outwith the entire learning journey of a young person in secondary school. It is important that there is an opportunity to review the charters during a young person’s learning journey, not just after it.

Amendment 278 would require qualifications Scotland to consult when it reviewed or revised the charters, while amendment 279 would ensure that the strategic advisory council would be involved in the detail of such reviews and could comment on them and recommend any additions.

Finally, amendment 285 would require any failure to meet expectations in the charters to be set out in qualifications Scotland’s annual report, along with what remedies qualifications Scotland would implement.

I move amendment 255.

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].