Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am not sure that I accept that. I hope that that is not an indication that the stage 3 discussions that we all agreed to last week are now closed off from the Government.

My amendments in this group are about what we would expect in practice from qualifications Scotland in relation to how it will make decisions, who it will listen to and engage with, and what principles it will prioritise. The amendments strengthen the duties in the bill by ensuring that qualifications Scotland is not only delivering qualifications but also building a system that is relevant, accessible, future facing and rooted in collaboration, building on the previous amendments. My amendments also ensure that qualifications Scotland is not only keeping up with change but that it helps to drive it, and that it recognises the importance of economic trends, emerging industries and developments in learning.

All the amendments in this group create a qualifications system that serves the learner and the labour market, from renewables and digital to the care economy and beyond. I do not think that we can allow or afford for qualifications Scotland to work in isolation, as we have just discussed, and these amendments build bridges with key public agencies—including SFC, SDS and Education Scotland—to create the joined-up coherence in the system that, it has been suggested, it has lacked. Learners are navigating an increasingly complex educational and employment landscape and these amendments help to bring clarity and consistency.

My amendment 234 would require qualifications Scotland to have regard to education and training that reflect the current and future needs of Scotland’s economy. I and supporters of the amendment believe that it would ensure that qualifications, and thus learners, can contribute to Scotland’s future in relation to what we need not only in our public services but also for our economic resilience and workforce preparedness. It is essential to deliver Scotland’s qualifications system in a way that is future facing and that does not lag behind economic demand or risk leaving learners unprepared for the realities of the future.

My amendment 235 builds on that and would require qualifications Scotland to be aware of and up to date with developments in learning across the whole range of knowledge and skills required and tested by qualifications delivered by qualifications Scotland. We heard that Professors Muir, Donaldson and Priestley have all supported a dynamic learning culture; by requiring qualifications Scotland to be aware of and up to date with developments in learning across the range of knowledge and skills that are tested, I hope that we could achieve their aspirations. The amendment will also support on-going development and improvement of qualifications.

I am supportive of the cabinet secretary’s amendment 55.

My amendment 240 would make the system much more simplified and coherent, creating a system that is accessible for all learners.

Amendment 236, in the name of Stephen Kerr, largely tries to achieve something similar to what my amendments would achieve, and we would be supportive of it.

My amendment 237 would require qualifications Scotland to have regard to any recommendations made by the SFC and SDS when making decisions. It is, again, an attempt to provide coherence. The Parliament is currently considering two bills in relation to education; in fact, I think that it is probably a wee bit more than that. However, there are two bills within this landscape, including post-16 education. The amendment seeks to ensure that there is collaboration across the systems and that any recommendations from those bodies are picked up in qualifications Scotland. It is a strong amendment to ensure accountability and collaboration.

I recognise the work that the cabinet secretary has outlined, including bringing teachers in to do the work that is necessary. That is another reason to require qualifications Scotland to consult Education Scotland, because it has that enhanced provision. It is important that they collaborate with one another and that they do not have the wriggle room to decide when they think that they have paid that due regard and decided that it was not necessary to do it. That is my fear, which is why I believe that amendment 233 is important.

I do not intend to press amendment 232 or move amendment 234, but I will move amendment 233.

I welcome the Government’s support and understanding of the arguments that we have made today. I will move amendment 233 on that basis.

Amendment 232, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 233 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Section 7—Duties when exercising functions

Yes.

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].

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.