Seòmar agus comataidhean

I guess that the beauty of the process that we have in this place is that, at stage 2, we can propose amendments and we can have further amendments at stage 3. If the committee were minded at stage 2 to accept that the proposals are sensible, we could look to give more clarity on the status of the framework at stage 3. If we are relying on a framework that really is of value—we all agree that it is—but that does not have statutory provision, and if the committee and Government agree that there should be a statutory arrangement, this is the very bill to provide that in.

I am still not convinced that it would not be a good opportunity to support the amendment now and perhaps enhance it at stage 3. I encourage Ross Greer to use his vote for that.

I welcome that intervention. Professor Muir is not here to answer that specific question but, what his report and all the other reviews—including the Hayward review, which the cabinet secretary referred to—seek to do is to provide parity of esteem. I do not see how that would confuse things; actually, I think that it would clarify the picture for learners and for employers, which is really important.

I am looking at my notes on the review of the post-school learning system, which said that foundation apprenticeships

“are often not viewed as comparable and that there is little consistency in the way that educational institutions will treat them when assessing entry requirements for further and higher education.”

That is just one example of how the current way in which we name and understand qualifications has confused the landscape and has a real impact on young people’s progression, whether to further or higher education or into employment. It is important that we take that on board.

On the basis of the discussion that we have had today, I am content not to move amendment 231 but to further discuss with the Government how we may consider the arrangement between the qualifications body and the SCQF Partnership and can further embed that in legislation. I take the cabinet secretary’s points about language and the implications for quality assurance and I would be prepared to discuss that at stage 3. I am also prepared not to move amendment 238, on the basis that the cabinet secretary is prepared to work with us to look at how we can ensure that regard is given to the SCQF in future.

I am not yet convinced of any reason not to press amendment 229, which looks to make SCQF levels clearer in the naming of qualifications. We have had some interaction on that issue today. Willie Rennie asked the cabinet secretary about support for that and I got the impression that the cabinet secretary was supportive and will look at that. I see no reason not to take this bill as the opportunity to do that so, on that basis, I will press amendment 229.

Regarding amendment 354, and because we are mentioning the point about SCQF levels that is dealt with by amendment 229, it seems remiss not to set out in legislation what the SCQF Partnership is, so I still feel the need to move amendment 354.

I am supportive of the inclusion of British Sign Language users, which is why I included them in my amendment. However, the same argument could be made for the inclusion of “persons with protected characteristics”; after all, many BSL users will be covered by the 2010 act, too. It is still important to specifically highlight that particular definition in the bill.

The second part of my amendment relates to specific groups that are not identified in the bill. It is about inclusive communication for disabled people, in particular, but it could also be about communication in other languages. I ask the cabinet secretary to reflect on that point.

As George Adam knows, one of the key recommendations from the Muir report was to create a new national body that would have the curriculum function and that could also serve as the space—which my amendments would provide for—to host the accreditation function that we have discussed so much during the committee’s stage 2 sessions so far.

On the basis of the discussion that we had last week about what would happen to accreditation, I am content not to move my amendments at this stage if, across the parties, we are still open to discussing what the best option would be at stage 3.

My amendment 286 would ensure that accessibility is built into the foundation of qualifications Scotland’s work and is not added as an afterthought. By requiring qualifications Scotland to have regard to the needs of BSL users and people with protected characteristics, we would strengthen inclusion and ensure that every learner can access vital information in a way that works for them.

As for the rationale that the cabinet secretary has just set out with regard to picking out particular groups from the protected characteristics groups, I find it difficult to see that as much more than a red herring. If the cabinet secretary would like to make an intervention, I would be happy to hear it.

I take the cabinet secretary’s point, but if we do not do it here, how else can we ensure that people who are not covered by the UNCRC get the same experience from the educational institutions that are delivering to people who are covered by the UNCRC? How can we ensure parity of experience if we do not do something in the bill?

On the basis that the cabinet secretary has suggested that we work together at stage 3, I will not move the amendment.

Amendments 282 and 132 not moved.

Amendments 35 and 71 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

Section 15—Annual report of Qualifications Scotland

I think that we can all agree that this is a pretty defining moment in the work to reform Scotland’s education system. It is important that the committee and the Parliament approach all the decisions that we take about it very seriously. We have had much discussion on the amendments to the bill that explored how we can bring clarity and coherence to the system and create a system that is not driven by assessment and, instead, is driven by the curriculum and by what learners and employers need in the future.

My amendments in the group seek to address that point. As it stands, the bill fails to grasp what was said by the OECD, Professor Graham Donaldson, Professor Mark Priestley, Professor Kenneth Muir, the international council of education advisers and, most importantly, all Scotland’s teachers, which is that it is absolutely crucial that we do more to ensure that the curriculum and assessment functions work in a more suitable way for learners in Scotland. We were promised that the bill would do that sort of reform, but it was silent; Education Scotland’s functions are only being brought into the bill through amendment.

The amendments are not about adding complexity; they are about removing duplication, confusion and contradiction by creating a dedicated body to lead on the curriculum, as the stage 1 report and many experts have called for. This would be a coherent system that would ensure that the curriculum drives qualifications and not the other way around.

I will start where Ross Greer left off, because I understand his concern about the regularity of meetings. If a meeting were to be put in just because it had to happen, that could become quite cumbersome. I will listen to what others have to say about that, but I take his point seriously.

This group of amendments is about embedding a culture of meaningful consultation. We have spent quite a lot of time this morning talking about the importance of consultation and collaboration by the national qualifications body, and the amendments seek to strengthen those things in order to overcome some of the concerns that we have had in the past about the SQA, perhaps, digging in its heels with regard to whether it should be talking to other people or taking on board their views. This is an attempt to try to avoid that happening again.

I get that culture change is difficult to legislate for, but there are lessons that we have to learn, and I see no reason why we would not put something in legislation to give a nudge, at the very least, to the relevant culture that we are hoping to achieve. That is the purpose of the amendments in this group.

My amendment 242 strengthens the consultation duty between qualifications Scotland and the strategic advisory council by requiring them to meet at least once a quarter—notwithstanding the point that I have just made about the timescales, which I am prepared to consider as the debate goes on—and, additionally, at any time that either party considers it necessary.

The amendment also removes the caveat that qualifications Scotland need only consult the SAC where it appears appropriate for it to do so. Again—and this is much like our previous discussion—the SQA might have felt in the past that it was not necessarily appropriate for it to consult particular organisations or bodies that all of us would probably have accepted that it would have been useful for it to have consulted. Therefore, amendment 242, in my name, takes out what I suppose is a sort of get-out clause for the qualifications body.

There is also an opportunity to trigger consultation with qualifications Scotland and the SAC. It means that, if we again find ourselves in the sort of situation that we had with higher history, there is an opportunity for the advisory council to say, “We need to have a meeting to discuss this”—bearing in mind the council’s role and who would be on it—and the same would apply in the other direction, so that qualifications Scotland could seek the council’s advice.

I think that that is crucial, given that the SAC is intended to be a much-needed platform that will include the voices of learners, teachers, practitioners, parents and other stakeholders representing wider society—voices that I think have been missing in the past. We must do everything that we can in the bill to create the structures that will develop the culture that we know is desperately needed, and the amendment makes it clear that Scotland’s new qualifications body would be publicly accountable to those whom it serves and would give a place to the lived experience of learners and their families. Therefore, I urge members to support amendment 242.

We are minded to support many of Ross Greer’s amendments in the group. Martin Whitfield’s comments about committees are important and we have to remember what the role of Parliament is. Nonetheless, as he and Ross Greer recognised, too often the recommendations of committees, such as this one and others, can be cast aside. We do a lot of work and we hear from a lot of people. It is important that, at the very least, due regard should be paid to them.

The purpose of specifying protected characteristics very specifically allows for an understanding and analysis of age and race. Both those aspects are defined as protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010.