Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will press amendment 245.

The member is aware of the powers that committees have to invite witnesses and the extent of, and restrictions on, the circumstances in which witnesses can be compelled to come. She will also know the circumstances in which people can be compelled to act on committee recommendations. In fact, there have been amendments to this legislation on that very point.

We need to do everything that we can, across the bill, including in the amendments on the chief inspector’s role, to create that independence. The amendments in Sue Webber’s name, to which I have added my name, do that.

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.

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?

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?

In principle, I support what the member is trying to do, so I am encouraged to hear that there is potential scope to incorporate such a change at stage 3. I agree with Willie Rennie that we could look at the question of accreditation more generally and what we will do with the structures.

Although we have had much discussion about the bodies, where we might place the accreditation function and whether we should have a new body, we really need to go into stage 3 with options available to us. We should incorporate what the member has tried to do in the amendments, but not until stage 3.

I agree that there would need to be parliamentary scrutiny, and the affirmative approach would be appropriate. One reason why the regulation aspect was written into the amendment was because I recognised that I was doing it at stage 2, which is not ideal. As I think I have made clear, I would have preferred it to be set out by the Government, through its taking into consideration all the recommendations of the independent review.