Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is a good point. The other amendments in the group, which are in Pam Duncan-Glancy’s name, propose the creation of a new agency—curriculum Scotland—to do the work in question. My colleague Stephen Kerr has been trying to improve the bill by defining in it the future role of Education Scotland in education. That is an important aspect, because we have all been looking at that organisation and wondering what it will do in the future and how it can be improved.

At the root of the challenge that we face in reforming the education system is the urgent need to provide clarification of who is responsible for what. As the OECD report rightly reminded us, governance clarity is not simply administrative tidiness; it is a precondition for effective oversight and learner-centred improvement.

I look forward to hearing from Pam Duncan-Glancy and the cabinet secretary.

I move amendment 290.

I am not sure how Pam Duncan-Glancy intends to vote on my colleague Stephen Kerr’s amendment 290, but that amendment would give Education Scotland the formal responsibility that, basically, her amendments would give to a new organisation. The minister is about to comment but I note that, currently, Education Scotland, Government departments and the University of Glasgow are doing work on that. Is there an opportunity, as part of the bill, to bring that into one single organisation, without costing the taxpayer more? That organisation could—and probably should—be Education Scotland.

I thank Ross Greer for teeing me up.

Good morning to members of the committee. I start by thanking the committee clerks and the legislation team for their help with amendments.

On amendment 129, the bill mentions a learner charter and an educator charter, but it does not include a parent and carer charter, and we need to correct that. A later amendment of mine would bring in such a charter. Amendment 129 provides for at least one member of the strategic advisory council to represent parents and carers of children and young people who are undertaking qualifications.

We all know about the positive contribution that parents and carers make to our school community, but they are also the people who prepare and support our young people to sit exams. In recent times, I have been concerned that the exam diet has been changed without any real consultation with or involvement of parents and carers. As such, I hope that this reform will, in due course, help to make sure that people can play a positive role in representing the interests of parents and carers.

I take on board what Ross Greer said about amendment 129. That is about the wording of the bill, and it is why the later definition amendments are important—so that people will be able to read those in the legislation. I will move my amendment, unless the minister thinks that it would be worth changing the wording. I do not necessarily think that it would, given that a later amendment provides that definition. I will be happy to move amendment 129 and to hear from the minister on that in due course.

Given that the bill will be sent to the King to sign, has the member taken any legal advice on the prospect of it coming back and slowing up the creation of these organisations? I do not think that the minister—or, indeed, anyone—wants that to happen, but it could potentially occur.

My amendments 130 and 208 in this group go to the heart of what I am trying to achieve as part of the bill, which I think is something that we all want to achieve: building confidence in the new organisation. I have listened to the cabinet secretary, who outlined that we need to do that for carers and for teachers, but we also need to do it for parents. That is why I want to see that triad as part of the bill; why I am pleased that the committee has agreed an amendment on a parent, or guardian, or carer, being part of the strategic advisory council; and why my amendment 130 would ask that qualifications Scotland has a specific duty to set up a parent and carer charter. It is important to provide that definition.

I take on board what the cabinet secretary has said in relation to care-experienced young people and the interest committees, which I think are working quite well to take forward the Promise in that area. There is a really positive role to be played in that regard.

For Stephen Kerr’s clarification, I support amendment 278. [Laughter.] I think that it would add value to the bill. I will end my contribution there.

On reflection, I think that there are drafting issues with amendment 131. As the opportunity exists for additional amendments to be lodged, I am happy, at this stage, not to press amendment 131 and to work with ministers and others ahead of stage 3.

Amendment 131, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 14—Corporate plan of Qualifications Scotland

The rationale for including that in the wording of the amendment is that it would be the headteacher who would sign off on providing the support rather than such evidence being provided by each teacher. The minister will come in at some point and, if there is wording in the amendment that needs to be simplified or corrected, I will be happy to take that forward.

Welcome back, everybody. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s amendments that we discussed this morning in relation to BSL. That is something that we have raised on a cross-party basis.

I lodged amendment 131 in relation to additional support needs. The recent Audit Scotland report in February pointed to the need for a fundamental review of needs and planning and resourcing for additional support for learning. The amendment comes from a number of discussions with teachers, parents and pupils on the bureaucracy that surrounds additional support for learning. I hope that it will present an opportunity to simplify things for those who need additional support.

Currently, each teacher is asked to provide evidence of additional support needs. The amendment would simplify that to just be one teacher—the headteacher. I hope that that would make a real difference to the guidance going forward and that it would be a helpful reform. There will potentially be additional improvements that can be brought forward ahead of stage 3, as I am sure that members will have other learnings that they would want to bring to the bill ahead of stage 3 proceedings.

I move amendment 131.

I would like to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say before taking that decision.

Amendment 303 proposes that the chief inspector be appointed for a fixed and non-renewable term of seven years. Again, that is about protecting the independence of the role. A non-renewable term removes the risk of perceived favour-seeking and liberates the postholder to lead fearlessly and impartially. Seven years is, I believe, a reasonable period—it is long enough to ensure that there is strategic continuity and that an impact is made. It also keeps fresh leadership in mind. That approach is consistent with other public appointments in Scotland and beyond. It is a safeguard against politicisation, entrenchment of authority and dilution of challenge.

At the committee’s meeting last week, we had a long discussion about whether seven years was an appropriate length of time to be head of an organisation, and whether there would be unintended consequences in respect of forcing someone out of the role, even if they were performing highly. I do not think that that would be the case.

To summarise, amendments 302 and 303 would work together to professionalise and protect the role of the chief inspector.

I move amendment 302.

I partly agree. Crucially, amendment 290 would place a duty on Education Scotland to involve teachers in shaping the curriculum, which I do not think would be impacted by ministers’ direction to that organisation. Teachers are the end users, and they should be at the heart of the process of developing the curriculum for young people. I think that amendment 290 is important in providing the opportunity for them to do that, as well as in decluttering the landscape of educational establishments.