Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the cabinet secretary for that clarification. This is more of a catch-all to ensure that we cover all the people who need to be covered for the sorts of communication that are required. I am not sure that I agree with the cabinet secretary’s rationale, but I understand it and I know the groups that are protected in the 2010 act. However, I do welcome the discussion.

I also want to make a point about the definitions. I do not see how the definitions that the cabinet secretary has set out would not still be useful if my amendment were to pass. I do not see the amendments as being mutually exclusive. I intend to vote for mine—if I move it, which I am minded to do—and for the cabinet secretary’s definition, given that it could be useful to set out provision for BSL. I do not think that setting out that definition, as it is drafted, would be problematic for my amendment.

On the other amendments in the group, I think that Ross Greer’s amendments 17 and 23, at this moment in time, pre-empt the conclusion of our consideration of the Scottish Languages Bill by putting Scots on an equal footing. I wonder whether it is appropriate to do that in this particular set of amendments.

When it comes to other aspects of the bill, such as the inclusion of BSL and those with protected characteristics with the specific aim of making sure that communication is inclusive for all, I urge members to consider supporting amendment 286.

Forgive me.

I appreciate the points that the cabinet secretary has made, and I understand that the convener has amendments in that space in group 21. I am reasonable, so I am prepared to listen to that discussion and think about how we can take the issues forward.

However, I am quite clear that there needs to be a mechanism to enable concerns to be addressed. I acknowledge that the convener has put forward suggestions about that mechanism, as I have done in amendment 254, and I would like to hear at least an acceptance from the cabinet secretary that something needs to exist in order for the review to be looked at. Perhaps she can intervene in order to confirm that.

This is not only about higher history; there have, in recent history, been other problems with exams, not least, of course, what happened in 2020, and there should be the ability to review those qualifications and how the exams are carried out. I think that the Government has a role in that respect, but if it does not want that role, and if we do not want the qualifications body to be seen to be marking its own homework, I am interested to see the alternative that the Government puts forward.

On that basis—

Yes.

Amendment 282 would ensure that the strategic advisory council’s role is not just consultative but also visible by requiring qualifications Scotland to show, in its corporate plan, how it works with the strategic advisory council and responds to its advice. Embedding that in the corporate plan would strengthen transparency and reinforce the council’s influence in shaping the strategic direction of qualifications Scotland. The amendment adds to the other amendments in the group in the name of Ross Greer.

Requiring transparency in how qualifications Scotland will work with the strategic advisory council and respond to its advice by placing that in the corporate plan will give assurance to people who are looking to ensure that qualifications Scotland is operating differently to the way that the current body operates and that the people who are part of the strategic advisory council, including, crucially, those whom my colleague Ross Greer just set out, have an opportunity to influence the organisation’s corporate plan. That is why amendment 282, in my name, is important.

I thank the member for finishing the point before taking my intervention, because it has helped me to understand the rationale a little bit. The point that I was going to make was about whether the charters would have set out things that the organisation had to do, even if the pandemic had made it difficult to continue doing them.

That would not have been unusual—the pandemic made it difficult to do a lot of things, and emergency legislation was put in place in recognition of that—but do you accept that it would have been better to have had charters in place, in order to set out what the organisation should have been doing, even if it meant that some other aspects had to happen, through regulation or emergency legislation, in recognition of the fact that we were in the middle of a global pandemic? Some of what could have been set out in charters might have prevented some of what we saw in 2020.

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

As the cabinet secretary just said, “However”, I wonder whether there was about to be a slight change in tack—I hope that I have not pre-empted that.

Would the Government support the principle of having the unique learner number, and of putting that in legislation, with the data-sharing aspect being seen as a benefit of that but not necessarily set out in legislation?

Will the minister take an intervention?

I am looking at the text of the amendments. Amendments 244 and 328 are about getting advice on whether, in order to allow either the HMIE or qualifications Scotland to exercise their function, there should be a unique learner number and there should be national data-sharing agreements. The amendments do not seek to set up those aspects but, in order to progress action on them, would enable the question to be asked as to whether they should be set up.

I take the point about the role of both organisations in doing that, but I think that the amendments are sufficiently narrowly drawn to the functions of the organisations to which they refer.

I move amendment 244.