Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Can you say whether those regulations would be made under the negative or affirmative procedure?

I support the amendment in principle. However, there are a couple of potential changes that could be made to the wording that might address Ross Greer’s point. Subsection 2(a) states:

“the circumstances where the person undertaking an examination may receive additional time”.

Is that something that would be set out by qualifications Scotland or is it something that would be bespoke and specific to the individual? It is important that such things are recognised, but would the member consider working with me and others to bring the amendment back at stage 3?

The point is well made. I note that I saw agreement from the cabinet secretary that stage 3 discussions are still on the table. That is really important. What I have tried to do with my amendments is recognise that we cannot reform the education system by continuing to do reform after reform and have a perpetual cycle of reforms. We have to get it right this time. I tried to create the space in the legislation for a body that could do what all the reports recommended, which is to reform the curriculum function and to separate the accreditation function. I have tried to do that by proposing a new body as a mechanism through which we could do it.

I still think that the bill was completely silent on some of the curriculum functions and that it could have done more regarding Education Scotland. There are amendments on that in my name and in other members’ names, as well. I did not want to miss the opportunity in the bill for us to put the curriculum at the heart of what we are doing for education in Scotland—driven by learners and by what is happening on the front line and in schools, rather than driven by assessment. The amendments that I have lodged—I am, of course, still speaking to them—could do that. However, as I agreed last week, I will not move the amendments on the basis that we will continue to have this discussion at stage 3.

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.