Seòmar agus comataidhean

No. However, in answer to Mr Mason’s question, I would suggest that, in order to meet the target, there would have to be a recruitment drive to support the requirement for a significant number of additional inspectors. That would be extremely challenging, given the depth of experience that is required for someone to become an inspector. After all, inspectors do not come fully formed; we have to train people, and that will take time.

Inspectors often join the inspectorate directly from school—I am thinking of, for example, headteachers and deputy headteachers. There are constraints on how quickly we can get staff out of school and trained up, which might compromise any approach to the associated challenges that we have already heard about this evening with regard to recruitment in the system more broadly.

There would also be an increased burden on teachers in having to prepare for the inspections; indeed, that is the point that I was trying to make to Mr Kerr. His proposal would add to the unnecessary pressure on schools, which, as we know, are already struggling with capacity issues. I therefore cannot accept Mr Kerr’s amendments and I encourage him not to move them.

Mr Greer raises an important point. Historically, schools were inspected on a generational basis—that is, every seven years—and we have moved away from that model in recent years. However, I am happy to investigate Mr Greer’s point, because I think that it is an important one.

I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move amendment 309. I will discuss the matter further with her and any other members, including Mr Greer and Mr Kerr, with a view to identifying what, if any, mutually acceptable provisions on the frequency of school inspections could be brought back at stage 3.

I have been discussing the matter with officials. The issue pertains to the use of the word “must”, which presumes that Parliament would grant the cabinet secretary or the minister of the day the permission to make the regulations in question. We have to give Parliament the final say in relation to the use of the word “must”. I cannot compel Parliament—Parliament has to decide. That is my difficulty with amendment 309, which is why I said to Ms Duncan-Glancy that I would be happy to work with her on her amendment such that we can all agree on it and Parliament can be given its place in making that decision, because that is not for me to dictate. I hope that that gives the member some reassurance.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am simply seeking to intervene on Ms Duncan-Glancy.

I thank Mr Greer and Ms Duncan-Glancy for explaining the purposes of these amendments.

Mr Greer’s amendments 36 and 37 together call for the annual report of qualifications Scotland to include a summary of advice offered by its committees and any response given by qualifications Scotland. I support the principles behind them and their ability to ensure greater transparency; however, I would like to work with Mr Greer to refine them, because I think that the proposal might sit better as a separate requirement in the bill rather than something attached to the annual report. Such an approach will ensure the possibility of more routine publications of that type, instead of its simply being embedded in one annual corporate governance document. If Mr Greer would like to work with me on that, I would ask him not to press or move his amendments, and we can adjust that for stage 3.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 283 and 284 make an addition to the reporting requirements to include any advice provided by the strategic advisory council and the response provided by qualifications Scotland. I support that objective; indeed, it is our intention to include a provision to that effect in the regulations that establish the council.

However, for reasons similar to those that I outlined in relation to Mr Greer’s amendments, I do not think that the best place to publish that advice and qualifications Scotland’s response is in the annual report. I would be keen to consider that as a separate requirement, and my preference would be to set out that type of provision in the regulations that establish the council, as already enabled under section 9 of the bill.

That said, I understand the desire to prescribe this in the bill and, if Ms Duncan-Glancy is not assured that we will deal with that in the regulations, I would like to work with her on the amendment for stage 3.

I thank Mr Briggs for explaining the purpose of his amendment. I agree with the sentiment that we should ensure that qualifications Scotland will provide guidance on arrangements that can be made to assist those with additional support needs when they are being assessed for qualifications. However, I am not clear about the member’s intention in relation to the requirement that anyone who has been given additional time for exams

“must be supervised by the head teacher”,

which is the point that Mr Greer made.

As drafted, amendment 131 is very restrictive and would likely prove unworkable in practice. For example, it does not take account of circumstances in which the headteacher is absent and does not specify who would be a suitable replacement. It also does not allow another headteacher to step in, as it specifies that it must be

“the head teacher of the educational establishment in which the examination is being undertaken.”

Therefore, we can foresee risks around scheduling and bottlenecks, the creation of which would be unfair on school administrators, teachers and, most importantly, pupils with additional support needs.

However, I recognise Miles Briggs’s desire for more assurance to be provided in this area, so I would be happy to work with him on the matter ahead of stage 3. On that basis, I ask Mr Briggs not to press amendment 131.

Good morning, members.

I thank Mr Greer and Ms Duncan-Glancy for setting out the purposes of their amendments. Mr Greer’s amendment 3 calls for an emphasis on learners, teachers and practitioners when considering the delivery of the functions of qualifications Scotland. I think that it is clear that his aim is one on which we can all agree. To that end, I fully support the emphasis on pupils and other students undertaking qualifications and on the teachers and practitioners who are delivering them.

My slight concern relates to the restrictive way in which the amendment might operate in practice, and the points that I made during our discussion on group 1 are relevant here, too. Therefore, I am grateful that Mr Greer did not press his amendment 2 in group 1 and that he will not be pressing amendment 3 so that we can work together on something for stage 3.

On Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 230, which, as I understand it, would require qualifications Scotland to quality assure its qualifications, that function has been an inherent part of the SQA’s operations and will continue to be a crucial component of how qualifications Scotland delivers high-quality qualifications. Earlier this year, I shared with the committee a paper setting out how school qualifications devised by the SQA are reviewed and quality assured. It would be helpful to revisit some of that in detail, alongside having discussions on the location and scope of accreditation functions, which we agreed last week.

The process of assuring national qualifications will continue in qualifications Scotland, and the premise of reviewing and quality assuring qualifications—particularly where issues arise, as Ms Duncan-Glancy has just highlighted—will not be a new feature of the qualifications body. As we know, issues will always appear in year, given—to put it bluntly—the size of the qualifications portfolio, but I am happy to support the amendment to provide reassurance that the process will continue to happen.

This discussion on amendment 230 also provides an opportune moment for me to update members on the work that the SQA has done, ahead of the transition to qualifications Scotland, to improve how qualifications are delivered in schools and to enhance its leadership structures. I believe that that is the work on which the convener asked for an update last week.

Members might recall that I commissioned the chair of the SQA to consider all that; a response was submitted to me at the end of last year, and it included proposals for a dedicated schools unit and initial considerations on leadership design for accreditation. I responded to the submission in February, giving support for the direction of travel and for more detailed proposals to be developed. Since that time, the SQA has revised its leadership structures to separate the chief executive and chief examiner roles—as we discussed last week—and to put in place an interim chief regulator for accreditation to enhance the separation of those functions. Again, we discussed that last week in relation to group 4.

The SQA, with funding from the Scottish Government, has also recently appointed a seconded headteacher into the organisation to act as a senior advisor on qualifications and to lead a new dedicated schools unit. That work will be hugely important in changing the way in which the organisation works with our schools. The individual in that senior role will report to the chief examiner and support the organisation to ensure that it is able to rebuild trust and confidence with our teachers. They will take up their role in the summer and will then transition to qualifications Scotland.

I will keep members updated on that work, noting the relevance of those discussions to a number of amendments that the committee has been considering. I hope that that is a helpful update in the context of these amendments.

That is, indeed, the case, Mr Mason.

I am conscious of the time, convener.

In its stage 1 report, the committee asked the Government to

“strengthen the measures within the Bill”

that relate to the inspectorate’s accountability, including to the Parliament. I listened to Mr Rennie’s point. I also support, subject to the use of a slightly shorter timeframe, Mr Greer’s amendment 92 in the “Inspection plans” group, which would require the chief inspector to lay a draft inspection plan before the Parliament. That amendment would give the Parliament an opportunity to review and comment on the operations of the chief inspector directly to the chief inspector.

Mr Rennie’s amendment 160 aims to add recognition of the important role of Parliament in relation to the ability of ministers to make regulations to specify intervals at which educational establishments are to be inspected. I emphasise that any such regulations will already be subject to the affirmative procedure, which means that they will not become law unless they are approved by the Parliament.

Ms Webber’s amendment 180 seeks a role for this committee in reviewing regulations that would set the frequency for reviews of an inspection plan. Those regulations will already be subject to the affirmative procedure, and I submit that that therefore already fully involves the committee.

To return to Mr Rennie’s amendment 160—apologies, convener—it appears that it is intended to create a special class of regulations that would be subject to an excessive period of parliamentary procedure that is significantly longer than the period that is used in the super-affirmative procedure for other regulations. Although the content of any regulations made under the bill will be important, they will not be as complex as some other regulations that are subject to a shorter laying period. For example, even the creation of the register of persons holding a controlled interest in land, which was incredibly detailed, was subject to only a 60-day laying period. Although I am unable to support the amendment in its current form, I would be happy to work with Mr Rennie on a revised amendment that fulfils his intent in a more manageable way.

More broadly, Mr Rennie has lodged a range of amendments that would remove powers from ministers in relation to inspection staff and would invest those instead in the chief inspector. Generally speaking, the amendments would give a great deal of largely unchecked power to an individual office-holder without any obvious restrictions or safeguards. That would be concerning and likely to bring unintended consequences that are yet to be fully understood.

For example, the chief inspector alone would be empowered to determine the number of inspections that would be employed, without any apparent limit. The amendments could also introduce an element of inconsistency into staff terms, which could vary depending purely on who the chief inspector is at the time of appointment. Once again, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for such staff to continue to be civil servants, as was recommended by Professor Muir. For those reasons, I urge members not to support Mr Rennie’s amendments in that area.

Amendment 182, lodged by Ms Webber, appears to be intended to require that every individual inspection report be laid before Parliament—something that have we heard about from other members. However, as Mr Greer pointed out, it is difficult to envisage that the Parliament would have the capacity to do much with the individual reports on every establishment that is inspected, which are expected to number around 250 a year. I contend that it would be better for the Parliament to focus on the annual report of the overall performance of the Scottish education system, which is already allowed for in the bill. I also emphasise that every inspection report will be published—as they are today—so that they will be available to the public and MSPs from publication. I therefore urge members not to support amendment 182.

I have more sympathy with Ms Webber’s amendment 186, which would replace the chief inspector’s power to lay any other report before the Parliament about any matter relating to their function with a duty for them to do so. Although that arguably removes an area of discretion for the chief inspector, I am happy to support that in further recognition of the importance of keeping the Parliament informed of the chief inspector’s judgment.

Ms Duncan-Glancy has also lodged amendments to ensure that certain reports that the chief inspector produces are simultaneously sent to the Parliament and Scottish ministers. I sympathise with the intention behind those amendments. Therefore, I support amendments 342 and 345, which relate to reports that must be laid before Parliament as is set out in the bill.

However, I am concerned that applying the same restriction to reports that “may” be laid before the Parliament would have the unintended consequence of reducing the number of reports that are laid, because it would essentially prevent reports from being laid if they had not been laid in the narrow window of time that the amendments set out. Therefore, I urge members not to support amendments 340 and 349. I would be happy to further discuss the issue with Ms Duncan-Glancy if she has any concerns about it.

Ms Duncan-Glancy has raised a really important point. Obviously, convener, your own group of amendments—that is, group 21—speaks to the same issue.

We need to be mindful of legislating on the back of that one very challenging incident with higher history and the potential unintended consequences that might rest alongside that, because lots of individual factors were at play in the investigation that took place. I absolutely accept the concerns expressed by higher history teachers; indeed, I have been before the committee to talk about some of those concerns, and the committee has quite rightly taken a keen interest in the matter.

My issue with the drafting of Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments is that they give Scottish ministers the powers to make regulations. I am not sure that that is the appropriate way of addressing those concerns; we need to be mindful of Scottish ministers’ power in that space, and of the wording with regard to raising concerns.

I am keen to address the issue that the member has raised, which I think is a serious one, but I think that we should do so via Mr Ross’s amendments in group 21. I therefore ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to press or move these amendments, with a view to discussing the issue as part of group 21, if she is content to do so. I am also mindful of our wider discussion around accreditation, which links directly to the points that the member has raised today.