Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good.

I very much agree with the latter point. We have heard from a number of members about the challenges that are associated with how that body was established, which I am not necessarily sure could be resolved through this bill, because it is focused on the role of qualifications Scotland. More broadly, the role of the SCQF Partnership, which has been raised by other members, is something on which I would be happy to engage with members.

Stephen Kerr talks about the cluttered landscape of educational bodies in Scotland. I have listened to his arguments, but I am not clear how that would be resolved by creating a new bespoke framework for qualifications Scotland’s delivery. If anything, that would add to the clutter in the landscape, so I am not sure that I agree with him on that point, but I agree with him on his overarching point in relation to the role of the SCQF Partnership.

I thank Ms Duncan-Glancy and Mr Kerr for explaining the purpose of their amendments. We can all agree on the importance of the SCQF as a national framework for qualifications, and I support the general principles of Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments in particular.

Qualifications Scotland will be expected to work closely with the SCQF Partnership in relation to the framework, as the SQA does now. Although their organisational functions and focus differ, they share the common goal of ensuring high-quality qualifications for learners across Scotland. It is right, then, that qualifications Scotland considers the advice of the SCQF Partnership on the status of the framework when delivering its functions, and vice versa.

Therefore, I offer my support in principle to amendment 238, which seeks to ensure in legislation that regard is given to the framework. Some technical changes will be needed if the provision is to be future proofed, as the framework is not, as we have heard, something that has been established by legislation. As such, it could change in future, and the legislation would then no longer work in the way in which we all intend it to. We would need to take a power to amend the reference or refer to such frameworks as ministers may specify in regulations. I am happy to work with the member to refine things for stage 3, and I therefore ask her not to move the amendment today.

I have just been advised that it will be set out in the regulations.

I intend to press amendment 67, which is of a different nature. It requires ministers to publish any guidance that is issued to the council regarding how and who it consults with, in order to strengthen transparency.

I turn to the amendments that seek to stipulate and prescribe the membership of the council. Mr Briggs and Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 129, 246, 248 and 253 look to specify a range of groups and organisations that we expect to be on the council. As the policy memorandum sets out, it is envisaged that the council will reflect the breadth of strategic organisational interest in qualifications Scotland’s functions. That means a membership that includes, but is not limited to,

“schools and colleges, universities and further education institutions, employers, training providers, a range of industries, parents and carers”

and their representatives,

“education authorities, other Scottish public bodies”

and

“other qualification providers”.

To address Mr Greer’s comments in the previous meeting on the bill, I want to take this opportunity to clarify the intention of the council. It is envisaged that the council will be for education and skills qualifications and the wider system stakeholders and not solely an academic-focused forum. It is absolutely appropriate that parents and carers’ representatives have a seat at the table.

Although I agree with all those amendments in principle, I cannot support them, because they undermine the need for flexibility and adaptability. It is important that we do not limit the ability for membership of the council to change over time according to its and qualifications Scotland’s needs. It has always been the Scottish Government’s position not to set out membership criteria in primary legislation, which is in effect what the amendments would do. In particular, amendment 248 would stipulate a requirement to include representatives of organisations that are not guaranteed by statute to continue to exist in their present form. For example, if Universities Scotland or Colleges Scotland changes name or ceases to exist, we would be unable to fulfil that legislative membership requirement.

I am keen to work with all members in the room and qualifications Scotland, outwith the bill process, to ensure that the council has a membership model that we can all get behind to maximise the quality of advice that qualifications Scotland will receive. By determining that outwith the bill, we can ensure that the council’s membership can be easily adapted in future, as needed, to meet the system’s needs, the priorities of the Scottish Government and the needs of qualifications Scotland. As I have said, the existing provisions give the opportunity to set out the membership in the regulations that establish the council.

I therefore ask both members not to move their amendments, with a view to working with us outwith legislation and, if reassurance cannot be provided, to revisit whether the suggested level of prescriptiveness is needed when we come to making the regulations. Regulations would at least be much easier to amend than the bill, which would make it easier to ensure that the council continues to meet future needs.

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.

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.

Ms Duncan-Glancy has raised some very important issues. However, I am not clear that they will be resolved through this bill, and I suggest that they relate to Mr Whitfield’s point about the UNCRC act. If she would like, I would be happy to attempt to arrange engagement among both members and Ms Somerville’s officials who led on the UNCRC act. We must have a coherent cross-Government approach, and I am mindful that the UNCRC act was led by Ms Somerville’s team last year. If members are content, I will take that challenge away.

With amendments 261, 271 and 285, Ms Duncan-Glancy is seeking to ensure compliance with the charters and ensure that how they are being upheld is reported on. The bill already provides that the charters must be created to set out user expectations, and that qualifications Scotland must report on how it plans to and has satisfied the expectations of the charters.

However, we must be mindful that unforeseen circumstances can change the expectations of users and the capacity of organisations to meet those expectations. The pandemic, as we have heard, is a case in point: the expectations that we all had about how things should happen had to change. I raise that point because, the requirement for absolute compliance with expectations might be something that can never be truly fully achieved. That is why I cannot support amendments 261 and 271.

I fully agree that qualifications Scotland should always work hard to meet the expectations in the charters, and I agree that how the charters are upheld should be reported on, including actions taken to address any issues. Therefore, if she does not move amendments 261 and 271, I would be happy to work with Ms Duncan-Glancy ahead of stage 3 to incorporate her amendment 285 into the existing charter reporting requirements.

I support the principle behind her amendments 265, 272 and 278. It has always been the intention of the interest committees to be closely involved in the development and review of the charters. Those provisions provide additional assurance that that will happen. However, legally, the committees are not persons, as they are not bodies corporate, so inserting them into a list that is about persons does not quite work.

In addition, amendment 278, as drafted, would require both committees to be involved in the revision of either charter, not just the charter that is relevant to the committee in question. That appears to be inadvertent, as it is a departure from what is set out in the amendments in relation to the original charters. I therefore offer to work with Ms Duncan-Glancy on that aspect for stage 3, and ask that she does not move these amendments.

As for the strategic advisory council being involved in the creation and reviewing of the charters, I cannot support Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 266, 274 and 279 as drafted. Although I agree that the council will have an interest in commenting on the charters, I do not agree with its being given the authority with regard to revising the charters. The council is a strategic-level forum for a wide range of system stakeholders, beyond simply learners and teachers, and I do not think it appropriate that it should have powers to alter the charters when those have been co-produced with learners and teachers. I would support an alternative amendment that would give the council the opportunity to comment on the charters—if the member would be happy to work with me on that, I ask that she does not move these amendments.

I turn to Mr Kerr’s amendment 270, which proposes that the teacher and practitioner charter sets out how qualifications Scotland would work with Education Scotland in relation to professional learning and development. I do not support the amendment for similar reasons to those that apply to amendments 257 and 269. It is for the service users—in this case, teachers and practitioners—to co-produce the content. The point of co-production is not to prescribe the charters’ contents in legislation.

I believe that Mr Kerr’s amendment 236 in group 10, which I support, would be more effective in ensuring that qualifications Scotland develops relevant professional learning and development for qualifications with Education Scotland. I ask Mr Kerr not to move amendment 270, so that we can focus on ensuring that we get amendment 236 right for stage 3.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 273 seeks to specify a range of stakeholders who must be consulted on the creation of the teacher and practitioner charter. Although I agree that education trade unions will have a key role in shaping the charter through consultation, their involvement is captured through existing provisions.

Furthermore, I do not agree with the range of other stakeholders that Ms Duncan-Glancy is seeking to specify in legislation to be consulted on the charter. Some of those will be captured by the catch-all provision that I have just highlighted. However, it is unclear what importance, for example, Universities Scotland, subject-matter experts and those with knowledge of business and industry would need to be given in a charter that is focused on supporting those who directly deliver qualifications. I therefore do not support amendment 273, and I encourage members to take the same position.

Mr Briggs’s amendment 130 and consequential amendment 208, and Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 275, would each place a requirement on qualifications Scotland to create additional charters. I do not support those amendments, for the following reasons. The bill already provides qualifications Scotland with the ability to consider creating other charters as it requires. However, I remind members that one of the key priorities for qualifications Scotland is restoring trust and accountability with children, young people and adult learners, and with our teaching profession. This is why the learner charter and the teacher and practitioner charter are an immediate priority and, in my view, must be enshrined in legislation. I believe that it is right that they are the initial focus.

I fully agree that parents and carers have a crucial role in supporting children and young people, and that they therefore have a role in ensuring that qualifications Scotland meets the needs of their children. We have already established the Scottish Assembly of Parents and Carers, which is delivered by Connect, and I would expect all national bodies, including qualifications Scotland, to take account of the assembly’s findings, which come directly from parents from all over Scotland. That further demonstrates our commitment to listening to parents and carers as advocates for their children. I lodged amendment 69 to ensure that parents and carers are included, although, having listened to the discussion, I am keen to work with members on how we can arrive at a mutually agreeable solution for stage 3 to that end, as previously intimated.

Turning to the post-school learner and practitioner charter. I am not clear why a separate charter is needed. Although I recognise that school and post-school settings can have different needs, I do not think that that warrants a separate charter, and it risks confusion. I also question the value of a combined charter for learners and practitioners when they will have different needs and expectations. It is my expectation that learners and practitioners in post-school settings would be captured in the respective charters for which the bill already provides.

Finally—as members will be pleased to hear—I come to amendments 276 and 277, from Ms Duncan-Glancy, which seek to reduce the review period of the charters from five years to three. I can see the merits of that reduction; however, I am mindful of not only the administrative burden, but the burden that we might place on children, young people, adult learners and teachers by more regularly consulting them on areas on which they have already given their views.

Three-yearly reviews would risk consultation fatigue; I also wonder whether three years is long enough for the impact of the charters to be seen. I highlight that the bill currently requires a review “within”, rather than after, five years, so there is flexibility built in to enable a review to take place at an earlier stage, should it be required. For these reasons, I ask the member not to move amendments 276 and 277.

I thank Miles Briggs and Pam Duncan-Glancy for explaining the thinking behind the amendments and I thank committee members for their thoughtful contributions. Overall, I am pleased that we collectively agree that Scotland needs a national body with a clear focus on the curriculum to drive improvement and support implementation, although I argue that we already have that. That is why I announced to the Parliament last June, via a Government-initiated question, that the work of Education Scotland would be refocused, ensuring that its primary focus is on leading curriculum review and improvement. As members will know, the curriculum improvement cycle is now well under way, and Education Scotland is successfully leading that work through engagement with teachers and young people.

In considering the amendments, the principle of legislating only when necessary has been at the forefront of my mind, as has the intended purpose of the bill, which is to establish qualifications Scotland and the office of HM chief inspector of education. I ask members to keep those points in their minds as we consider the group.

I turn first to amendment 290. Although I understand Mr Kerr’s rationale for setting out Education Scotland’s functions in legislation, I believe that the same result can be achieved without the need for legislation. In fact, the cluttered landscape that Mr Briggs spoke to will not be aided by creating a new national body.

I recognise members’ concerns that the role of Education Scotland, and its relationship to other national bodies and the sector more broadly, needs to be clearer. I agree with that sentiment whole-heartedly. It needs to be clear to local authorities, teachers and practitioners what services Education Scotland offers, and when and how to access them. There must also be confidence in the quality of those services.

After the separation of the inspectorate, which will follow the—I hope—successful passage of this bill, we will need to continue to work with Education Scotland to define its role in and relationship with the system and to clearly communicate that role to teachers, practitioners and children and young people. More broadly, however, teachers who have been working in Scotland for a number of years will be particularly au fait with Learning and Teaching Scotland, as it was, which existed previously. That support mechanism to the curriculum is currently well understood by many teachers across the country.

As I mentioned, Education Scotland has a key role in relation to curriculum review and improvement, which includes the curriculum improvement cycle and supporting local authorities. However, it also works on inclusion, behaviour, additional support needs and closing the attainment gap. It is important that we make best use of Education Scotland’s professional expertise across priorities other than curriculum, some of which I just mentioned.

Another area that I am sure that Mr Briggs and Mr Kerr—although he is not here now—will be familiar with is developing leadership skills. Mr Kerr has been pretty consistent in making that point last week and earlier today. Education Scotland will build on its success in that area, creating leadership capacity across the system. With those points in mind, I am concerned that the amendment as drafted would narrow Education Scotland’s focus too much. Building on its primary focus on the curriculum, Education Scotland has much to add across other national priority areas that impact our teachers and young people, and I would not want that to stop or be curtailed unnecessarily.

Mr Kerr’s amendment does not take account of other national bodies and services that have a key role to play in delivering aspects of Scotland’s curriculum. I am particularly mindful, for example, of Skills Development Scotland, which includes our careers service and Developing the Young Workforce.

In addition, Education Scotland is an executive agency of the Scottish ministers. Statutory functions should not be conferred on such agencies, as they do not—as I think that the committee has heard today—have their own separate legal personality from that of the Scottish ministers. In legal terms, there is, strictly speaking, nothing on which that duty would operate.

For those reasons, I cannot support Mr Kerr’s amendment. However, I note the committee’s interest in the role of Education Scotland, and I would be happy to engage with members through the reform process outwith this bill. Education Scotland’s functions and governance arrangements will continue to be published, as they are now, to ensure that there is transparency and clarity for the system.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 293, 294 and 296 would establish, as we have heard, a new body called curriculum Scotland, set out its functions and place requirements on it to prepare and publish an annual report. Although I appreciate the intention behind the amendments—and, again, I welcome the cross-party agreement that Scotland needs a national body that is clearly focused on the curriculum—I cannot support them. Indeed, as I have previously stated, I would argue that that body already exists.

As members are aware, and as we have discussed, Scotland’s public services are currently under significant fiscal pressure. I do not believe that establishing a brand-new curriculum body in addition to Education Scotland meets the principles of public sector reform around driving efficiency and effectiveness. It would also run contrary to the Government’s commitment to creating no new, small, stand-alone public bodies. I hope that committee members share the view that creating brand-new public bodies via amendments to legislation should not be done without first considering the necessary policy, legal, financial and delivery implications.

Mr Whitfield’s earlier point about flexibility is really salient. The member will be aware that what is currently the SQA—what will be qualifications Scotland—is looking across the piece at the wide variety of qualifications that are being delivered in our schools. Those have changed substantially since the member and I were in school, and we need to be mindful of that flexibility and allow the organisation the opportunity to move and respond accordingly. Therefore, I agree with the sentiment behind the member’s point.

I cannot support amendments 229 and 231, which seek to place in legislation operational arrangements between the two organisations. Amendment 229 seeks to ensure coherence in naming conventions, but I believe that that will be best resolved through the working that we already have and through the collaborative relationship between qualifications Scotland and the SCQF Partnership. Notwithstanding that, I think that support for the principle of amendment 238 delivers that. I will speak to that in a moment.

Before I do so, though, I want to set out why I cannot support amendment 231. As drafted, it seeks to place the requirement to enter into a shared confidence arrangement in the context of qualifications Scotland’s own quality assurance functions. Those functions are for qualifications Scotland to satisfy itself that the arrangements that educational establishments have in place for delivering qualifications and related assessments are appropriate. Those quality assurance functions protect the integrity of qualifications and ensure that all those taking qualifications do so in a way that is fair and equitable. The SCQF Partnership has independent oversight of the credit rating functions of the credit rating bodies such as the SQA.

In its letter to the committee, the SCQF Partnership clearly set out its role in the system and the relationship that it has with the SQA. It is clear from that that the SCQF Partnership has no role in the operational quality assurance processes for qualifications that qualifications Scotland and other awarding bodies will put in place to support delivery. It is therefore hard for me to see why the SCQF Partnership must enter into an agreement with qualifications Scotland on those particular matters.

Although there may be some concerns about how the SCQF Partnership and the SQA work together, I understand that the chief executive of the SCQF Partnership and the interim chief executive of the SQA are working closely to strengthen that approach.

I hope that my intention to work with Ms Duncan-Glancy on amendment 238, alongside the assurances that I have provided on reviewed arrangements between the two organisations, provides the reassurance needed. I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to press amendment 229 and not to move amendment 231 and her connected amendment 354.

Mr Kerr’s amendment 289 seeks to create a separate framework for qualifications that is managed by the SCQF Partnership. That suggestion contradicts the purpose of the existing national framework, which is a single national qualifications framework for Scotland. Therefore, to have a framework that is exclusively for qualifications Scotland would arguably undermine the principle of a cohesive and simple framework for the whole country. For those reasons, I do not support the amendment, and I encourage others to do the same.

Forgive me—it is in relation to the wording around knowledge and skills learning. I would like to revisit that with Ms Duncan-Glancy ahead of stage 3, if she supports that approach. I would like to discuss some tweaks to the terminology.

Mr Greer’s amendment 6 would place a duty on qualifications Scotland to

“have regard to the economic, social and environmental priorities of the Scottish Ministers.”

Alignment with Government objectives is a fundamental obligation for Scotland’s public bodies. It will be the role of the board of qualifications Scotland to ensure that. Scottish ministers also set out priorities for public bodies via strategic guidance letters annually, which include priorities in the areas that Mr Greer lists. Although I do not believe that his amendment is strictly needed, I am content for it to be supported in order to provide additional assurances that those factors will be considered.

Mr Greer has also lodged amendment 34, which seeks to ensure that qualifications Scotland will act in a “transparent and accountable” way. I agree that that must be a founding tenet of qualifications Scotland, just as it should be, and is, for all public bodies, but I cannot support amendment 34 as drafted and am keen to work with him on an alternative approach. It would be more effective to define the activities and processes that would deliver that transparency and accountability, rather than having an overarching principle as is expressed in the amendment as currently drafted.

What constitutes “transparent and accountable” behaviour is often open to interpretation, which means that qualifications Scotland could be behaving in line with best practice on transparency and accountability but that those behaviours could be challenged as not being transparent or accountable enough. The bill already gives many examples of activities and processes that support greater transparency and accountability, such as the interest committees, the charters and the reporting duties, and many amendments from Mr Greer and other members also seek to embed specific transparent and accountable behaviours, so I ask Mr Greer not to move amendment 34, with a view to working with me to build on that work ahead of stage 3.

Finally, I turn to Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 240, which seeks to prescribe a duty on qualifications Scotland to

“have regard to the desirability of simplifying, or ensuring the coherence of, the qualifications system”.

The simplification of our qualifications system was one of the key recommendations that the Scottish Government accepted from the independent review of qualifications and assessment.

Members will be aware that the SQA is already taking a range of actions to support the delivery of that commitment, and qualifications Scotland will take those forward. For example, the SQA is undertaking a review and rationalisation of its qualifications offer. However, the qualifications, training and skills system is vast and has many actors with aligned, but often different, responsibilities. So, although qualifications Scotland will have a role in that, and will work towards simplifying its own qualifications offer, it will not have an oversight role for the entire system and it is therefore not within the gift of qualifications Scotland alone to simplify the entire system or to ensure coherence across it.

For those reasons, I do not support amendment 240 and I ask the member not to move it.