Seòmar agus comataidhean

I remind the committee and those watching of my declaration of interests.

Stephen Kerr highlights a number of points that, to a great extent, fall within the current inspection environment. I am slightly concerned about paragraph (c) of proposed new subsection (1A), because what, in essence, he is inviting the inspection to look at through amendment 304 is the qualification and competence of a teacher. The reference to

“undertaking a qualification in that establishment”

would tend to link to what are known, in the current parlance, as national 5s in high school. Is that not properly the responsibility of the management in the school in the first instance, and then the local authority? Indeed, if there is a question about competence, any approach to such matters lies with the General Teaching Council for Scotland, instead of an inspector being put in the position of having to comment on a professional status that has already been gained, in respect of which, I should add, there are protections, should someone be falling short.

I am happy to do so.

Good morning. It is still morning—just. I remind members of the committee and people watching of my entry in the register of interests, in which I declare that I received a financial payment as a result of having been a teacher before the start of this parliamentary session.

My amendments in this group relate to a number of matters, but they are all founded on the purpose that sits behind the charters. I go back to what the Scottish Government said last year about what people can expect of the charters. It said:

“The purpose of the charters is to set out what service users”—

young people who are going through the system—

“and delivery partners should expect from Qualifications Scotland.”

That relates to John Mason’s intervention about the use of the term “expectations” in some of the amendments that we are considering.

My first amendment in this group is amendment 258, which is about the importance of the learner charter—it is right that it should have such importance—and the importance that those who will look to it will place upon it. One thing that those who look to the charter will rely on is the validity of how it was initially drafted. If the drafting of the charter is done too closely to those about whom the charter speaks—in other words, those on whom the expectations are being placed—it will lose some of its credibility. Therefore, with amendment 258, I make the strong suggestion that the learner charter should be drafted by someone who is external to qualifications Scotland. Obviously, that person would need to have the appropriate expertise and knowledge, and they would be required to consult.

We have heard a lot about the requirement for, and expectation of, consultation during the discussion on amendments in this stage 2 debate. The purpose of amendment 258 is to result in a charter that better reflects the needs and rights of learners and that is free from institutional bias. Ross Greer used the phrase “the blob” earlier on, but, without denigrating anyone who suggests using that phrase, I offer “institutional bias” as a more polite phrase.

The importance of the learner charter cannot be overestimated. It is one of the important requirements in the bill and it is something that, in due course, learners in particular will look to. Giving it the additional strength and credit of not initially having been drafted internally would allow it to benefit from the new educational institutions and ideas that we have in Scotland from the start.

My other amendments in the group refer to the UNCRC. The challenges faced by young people who rely on the UNCRC rest entirely with the hodgepodge way—to use a throwaway phrase—in which the system was created. That is probably more the case with education legislation than in any other area. It is a question of which institution the acts, statutory instruments and other things were created in and the challenges that are brought as a result. It would be welcome for the entirety of this act to sit within the requirements of the UNCRC, so that young people would have a vehicle through which to explore the challenges of a conflict, of not being able to have an appeal heard as they require, and of a committee not being considered.

Amendment 259 directly and specifically indicates that the learner charter

“must seek to promote children’s rights in accordance with the UNCRC requirements.”

My other amendment in the group, amendment 267, clarifies for the avoidance of any doubt—we will talk about the definitions sections later—that

“‘UNCRC requirements’ has the same meaning as in section 1(2) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024.”

I say genuinely and in good faith that I see the challenges that sit behind this. I am more than happy to accept the cabinet secretary’s proposal, and I will not move amendments 259 and 267. However, I put on the record that the matter is becoming very urgent for people outside of this place, particularly young people, and that, given the constraints on parliamentary time, the bill might be the legislative vehicle for this specific issue. I am more than happy for those discussions to happen before stage 3.

That raises the interesting point. If we remove the word “draft” and use the word “facilitate”, there are people who have expertise in facilitating co-production that might lie outwith the skill set of those who are in the organisation. As I indicated in my intervention on Ross Greer, I am more than happy not to move amendment 258 today. However, the importance and value of the charter require to be built on the best foundations.

The cabinet secretary used the word “proportionate” and suggested that there might be another method by which concerns could be addressed. I am concerned that a consequence of that might be a ranking of appeals in relation to marking, but I am sure that the cabinet secretary did not mean to suggest that when she used that word. Perhaps we can revisit the issue in subsequent amendments, but I am just worried that people who are watching our proceedings might think that there will be a different ranking of value if, say, concerns are raised by just one person.

Will Pam Duncan-Glancy take an intervention?

The member will accept that there is an existing structure that covers the qualifications that the SCQF Partnership provides for. I do not disagree with what his amendment seeks to do, but, if we solidify that existing framework in primary legislation, is a challenge not that, as we develop needs and expectations and as new qualifications come along, it might be bound by a language that, as we have discovered with education in Scotland, very quickly becomes antiquated and, indeed, might prevent some of the development that the member and I are seeking to achieve for our young people in the form of qualifications and parity of qualifications across the board?

Is it not the case that, however challenging the question, once it is answered, it is answered and people can move forward from that? The idea behind the amendments is that having a unique learner number and an agreement to share data will benefit all the other inquiry requirements that both bodies, whichever is chosen—I hope that one of them is—take forward.

My apologies if this is an ill-founded attempt at an intervention, but my concern with amendment 60 relates to aspects that both John Mason and Liz Smith have highlighted. With regard to the role of parliamentary committees, they are a structure of the Parliament, for the Parliament. Ross Greer has rightly pointed out that a number of external agencies respond to the Parliament—specifically, to various committees. Does he have a concern that, if his proposed route were to be adopted, every committee would be required to adopt it for everyone who answers to them? That will shift the fundamental reason for having committees in the Parliament, which is that they are, at a high level, advisers on the minutiae of what the chamber should decide.

I understand why Ross Greer lodged amendment 60, and I acknowledge the challenges that have existed with the non-response that this committee and its predecessors have had to their requests. However, we are potentially opening up Pandora’s box that will give us significant problems further down the road and cause us to fail on more levels.