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.

They are defined as protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010, but the advice that I have is that, because the age difference is not prescribed, that will not apply in the way that I think that the member intends. I recognise that more reassurance is needed there, so perhaps we can work together to arrive at a resolution.

I also reassure members that qualifications Scotland will be a named organisation that will be subject to the public sector equality duty, which will require the organisation to have due regard to those types of equality considerations when carrying out its functions. Those considerations should be captured by that duty—to answer Ms Duncan-Glancy’s point.

I fully support prescribing British Sign Language users and those with additional support needs as groups who should be consulted. I therefore ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to press her amendment, with a view to working with Government on whether more is needed or can be done to strengthen existing equality-focused provisions and duties for stage 3.

Amendments 257 and 269 from Ms Clark require the charters to include a list of support that qualifications Scotland will offer to children, young people and adult learners. From Ms Clark’s contribution, I understand that she is not going to move her amendments. We discussed some of the issues last week. As they are drafted, the amendments go against the purpose of the charters in two ways. First, the charters are not there to define a list of services that qualifications Scotland must provide; it is more about how it provides services. The second issue relates to co-production, which will ensure that the charters reflect the needs of those who they are designed to serve. By defining the content to be covered in legislation, we risk pre-empting the co-production process. Ms Clark has, however, raised some important points. I recognise that she is not going to move her amendments but I just wanted to put all that on the record.

Amendment 258 from Mr Whitfield sets out an interesting proposal for an independent person to prepare a draft of the learner charter. I have some concerns about whether such a move is necessary, particularly given the additional provisions for consultation, transparency and accountability within the bill, as well as the changes on co-production that I have committed to. Also, if the person requires to have the relevant skills, knowledge and expertise in relation to the functions of qualifications Scotland, that risks us having a pretty limited pool of candidates compared with the expertise that will be held by qualifications Scotland.

To answer Mr Greer’s point, the intention was always for co-production, and the bill will make that clear following the work that I will undertake with Mr Greer and Ms Duncan-Glancy. I will not therefore be able to support amendment 258.

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 that information 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 would argue that Education Scotland fulfils much of the recommendations that were contained in the Muir review. My refocusing of the organisation last year has certainly helped to drive some of that.

If we go back to the wording that was used in the Muir review, we see that the report recommended a national education agency, which was to be an executive agency, not an NDPB. There is no need for legislation in this space, arguably. That is the point that I was trying to make in my opening response.

More broadly, and as I noted in my response on Mr Kerr’s amendment 290, although curriculum review and improvement will still be the primary focus of Education Scotland, the remit of our national education agency needs to extend further than just the curriculum. Professor Ken Muir noted the need to simplify the complex landscape in Scotland, which Mr Briggs alluded to, and I think that inserting a new education body into that landscape would add an unnecessary layer of complexity in the system.

Refocusing the work of Education Scotland achieves the overall aims of Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments and ensures that we have a national body that is focused on curriculum and that is informed by teachers, children and young people, without the need for a new stand-alone body.

On that basis, I cannot support the amendments.

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy and Ross Greer for explaining the purposes of their amendments. In general, many of those amendments align with the fundamental principles and values under which qualifications Scotland should operate.

A number of amendments would require qualifications Scotland to “have regard to” the advice and recommendations that may be given to it by Education Scotland, the Scottish Funding Council and Skills Development Scotland. Like the SQA, qualifications Scotland will have an inherent requirement to work effectively with those organisations to deliver in the interests of Scotland’s children and young people and adult learners. Although I do not necessarily believe that that needs to be prescribed in legislation, I recognise the level of reassurance that it would provide to the system to make it clear that the organisations that work in the same space will collaborate as appropriate.

A few points of drafting in relation to amendments 236 and 237 will need to be refined—including how we describe Education Scotland and SDS, to ensure that that works in legislation. I highlighted that point in the discussion on group 9.

I am also not quite sure that the language of “recommendations” is right when it comes to expressing the nature of that collaborative relationship. I am keen to work with Stephen Kerr and Pam Duncan-Glancy on those amendments ahead of stage 3, and I ask that they do not move them today. I also ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move amendment 239 but, instead, to work with us on amendment 236—if Mr Kerr is content with that, of course.

Amendments 55 and 56 place duties on qualifications Scotland to have regard to the needs of those who use British Sign Language in the context of learning, BSL-medium education, and those who teach with British Sign Language. I echo Ross Greer’s points in congratulating the BSL community—in particular, children and young people—for all its campaigning in that space.

Members will note that my amendment 54 adds an express reference to children and young people as a distinct user group whose needs and interests need to be taken account of by qualifications Scotland. The amendment recognises that, often, children and young people have different requirements from others who may use the services of qualifications Scotland.

Ross Greer has lodged amendment 4, which seeks to change the wording in the bill to require qualifications Scotland to “prioritise” rather than “have regard to” the needs and interests of those who use its services. Although I understand the intention behind that amendment, I am concerned about the expectations that we would set through the use of the word “prioritise”. Qualifications Scotland will of course need to have regard to its service users as a high priority.

I reassure Mr Greer that, as I said in the evidence session last week, I agree that it is important that qualifications Scotland prioritises services for children, young people and adult learners. However, as a public body that operates in an education and skills ecosystem, it also needs to have as a priority, when essential, other public bodies duties that might, from time to time, conflict with the priorities of service users. Learners will also have conflicting ideas about what they would prioritise, so it will be challenging to prioritise all of them. For example, candidates undertaking qualifications might want certain topics or assessment methods to be prioritised, and that might differ from the needs of employers or the higher and further education sector.

It is essential that qualifications Scotland, with the support of its new governance arrangements, is able to make such judgment calls. By including the word “prioritise”, we are potentially setting the organisation up for challenge when certain priorities of different groups have not been met, despite there being reasonable and valid reasons for that.

To that end, I emphasise that the term “have regard to” is not without impact. It requires qualifications Scotland to fully consider the needs and interests of everyone who use its services and ensure that they have been factored into its decisions and the delivery of its functions. Given those assurances, I ask Mr Greer not to move amendment 4.

I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the cross-party talks that we will all enter into, so I will leave that issue there. I am happy to engage with members on the substantive point. I hear the convener’s point; others have made similar points.

Members need to be mindful of the fact that qualifications Scotland will have functions in relation to devising and reviewing qualifications and assessments. We will seek assurances on the validity of those processes, which will continue to play a key role. For example, in the same way that the SQA does, I would expect qualifications Scotland to have a head of standards to oversee and support the organisation’s approach to maintaining and improving standards throughout all stages of qualifications Scotland’s qualifications and awarding processes.

Members have recognised that the accreditation function that we discussed last week, which delivers oversight of the quality assurance of the assessment components within the qualifications system, plays an important role. We have already spoken at length about that, as I have alluded to, and we have discussed the role of accreditation in the system from the point of view not only of its location, but of its reach and scope. Last week, in response to Mr Kerr, I made the point that members needed to be mindful of the fact that not all qualifications in Scotland are currently accredited. When we talk about scope, we should be mindful of the effect on the qualifications portfolio in its totality.

It is clear that all those elements of Mr Ross’s amendments cannot be discussed in isolation from one another, or from the points that Mr Rennie made. I would like to discuss all those matters in the round when we have our meeting on accreditation in the coming weeks.

For all those reasons, I cannot support Mr Ross’s amendments in their current form. I ask Mr Ross not to press amendment 297 or to move amendments 298 to 301, with a view to our revisiting those points on a collective basis at stage 3.

I broadly agree with the sentiment behind Mr Adam’s question.

It is important that ministers hold the power to take that enforcement action, where necessary and proportionate, on the basis of information from inspection. In my view, the inspectorate of education is not and should not be about regulation. Taking on such an enforcement role, which it does not currently have, would fundamentally change its character. I therefore cannot agree with Sue Webber’s amendment 155, even if that is accompanied by amendment 307 from Stephen Kerr—who, I appreciate, is not here—as it would leave ministers without the ability, under any circumstances, to require the chief inspector to secure the inspection of a particular establishment, including in cases in which significant concerns had been raised.

Similarly, I urge members to reject Mr Rennie’s amendment 156, which would require ministers to seek the views of the committee before requesting an inspection. Given the circumstances in which powers are likely to be used, such as where there might be urgent concerns—the point that Mr Greer raised—it would not be appropriate to take time for that step if we had to move at pace.

I also urge members to reject Ms Webber’s amendments 189 to 205, which would remove the role of ministers in relation to enforcement directions.

Additionally, as has been alluded to, Ms Webber’s amendment 155 would remove the requirement for the chief inspector to comply with a request from ministers to inspect an educational establishment. It would also remove the power of the chief inspector to secure the inspection of an excepted establishment on the request of ministers.

Amendment 161 would remove the excepted establishment definition in section 31(4) of the bill. That would be problematic because, taken together, those amendments would bring post-16 further education colleges and the higher education institutions that deliver accredited initial teacher education within the scope of the chief inspector’s duty to secure inspection of educational establishments at such intervals and to such an extent as the chief inspector considered necessary. Under the current provisions, excepted establishments would be inspected only on the request of ministers.

I agree that there is a need for robust quality assurance mechanisms to be in place for post-16 further education for ITE. However, two separate oversight and regulatory mechanisms already exist. The Scottish Funding Council, which I know has written to the committee, already has a statutory duty to ensure that provision is made for assessing and enhancing the quality of university provision, including ITE and post-16 further education.

In relation to ITE specifically, a second layer of regulation is led by the General Teaching Council for Scotland, which is the relevant professional body—I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests in that regard. Amendment 161 would create a third layer, adding further duplication, additional bureaucratic requirements and extra costs for higher education institutions, with no discernible benefit.

More broadly, members’ amendments in the group have competing conceptions about whether power over a range of matters should be vested in the chief inspector alone or whether it should be vested in the Scottish Parliament’s corporate body and in the committee.

On the latter, a range of amendments lodged by Ms Webber seek to place powers with the SPCB as opposed to with ministers. I am mindful of the fact that the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which includes Mr Mason and Mr Greer, reported in September 2024 on the number of bodies that are supported by the SPCB and recommended a moratorium on the creation of any more. The Parliament voted to accept that recommendation, and the convener and Ms Webber were among those who supported it.

More than that, the committee also noted that SPCB-supported body status was not necessary to demonstrate independence from Government, with policing and prisons inspectorates being cited as good examples of Government-led bodies that act independently and produce robust recommendations. Given that the model for HM chief inspector of education, which is set out in the bill as introduced, broadly follows that same approach, it is not clear why the education inspectorate cannot be equally successful.

In addition, the model as proposed in the bill would allow us to meet one of Professor Muir’s key recommendations—that HM inspectors of education continue to be civil servants. That would not be feasible if they were to become employees of the chief inspector, with all the implications of that for the transfer of staff.

Also, in its stage 1 report, the committee noted that some members did not consider it necessary for the chief inspector to be accountable to the Scottish Parliament.

On a point of order, convener. Amendment 73, in my name, adds a requirement for a statutory review to be undertaken on the accreditation function. I offer my thanks to Ms Duncan-Glancy for her eagle eyes on this, because, earlier tonight, I inadvertently moved the amendment and, in response, members—also, I presume, inadvertently—unanimously supported it. As I promised all members, I am entirely committed to cross-party discussions ahead of stage 3 on the location and scope of the accreditation function and the connected interest in the reviewing and quality assurance of qualifications. It is absolutely not my intention that amendment 73 pre-empt those discussions. I fully intend to remove or amend the provision at stage 3 to reflect the outcome of the discussions, and I want to put that on the record. I again offer my thanks to Ms Duncan-Glancy.