Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank Mr Briggs for setting out, on behalf of Mr Kerr, the purpose of these amendments. I believe that they both bring forward important points, but I am not able to support them in their current form.

Leaving aside, for the moment, the question of which entity would be appointing the chief inspector, I agree with the principle behind amendment 302, which I take to be that the chief inspector should have relevant educational experience, including at leadership level.

However, I believe that there are a number of issues with the amendment as drafted. The principal issue is that insisting that the chief inspector should be, or should have been, “a registered teacher” may unintentionally exclude excellent candidates. In particular, depending on how the idea of being registered is interpreted, and whether that means being registered with the General Teaching Council for Scotland, it may exclude someone from outwith Scotland who has not been registered here.

Amendment 303 limits the length of appointment to a maximum of seven years and prohibits reappointment. I suggest to members that that is unnecessary prescriptive, even if the original appointment was for a much shorter period of time than seven years.

As I flagged to Mr Kerr in the debate on group 4 last Wednesday, when he sought to make similar provision for the chief executive of qualifications Scotland, the terms of chief executives and, in this case, other HM chief inspectors for other inspectorates in Scotland are generally governed by appointment contracts and governance frameworks, rather than explicit legislative term limits.

With regard to removing the ability to be reappointed as chief inspector, again, I point out to members that that would remove the flexibility that may, in certain circumstances, be needed to ensure the effectiveness of the office.

However, I understand the reasons behind both the amendments. I respectfully ask that amendment 302 is not pressed and that amendment 303 is not moved, and I commit to working with Mr Kerr, or indeed with Mr Briggs, ahead of stage 3 to agree a way forward.

I am afraid that I cannot agree with Mr Mason’s assertions, and I am not able to support the amendments.

I am listening to the member’s points and I am pretty supportive of where she is. In listening and responding to that, I will not resist that amendment, because I think that the arguments that have been set out are compelling. I have given her a response today on some of the work that I have undertaken to build in a better relationship, but I take on board the points that she has made. I think that they are reasonable, convener, so I am happy to support the amendment from the Government’s perspective.

I have finished, but yes, I will.

The member talked about the inspector scrutinising ministers’ practice, but the job of the chief inspector is not to scrutinise ministers’ practice; it is to scrutinise learning and teaching practice in our schools. It is important that we make that differentiation. I am sure that you can all pass judgement on ministers’ practice.

I thank Ms Duncan-Glancy and Mr Greer for outlining the purpose of their amendments, and I welcome the support for the inclusion of BSL in the bill. For the reasons that I have already set out, I urge Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move her amendment but to support mine instead. I also urge members to support Mr Greer’s amendments on Scots in addition to my amendments on BSL.

To answer Ms Duncan-Glancy’s point, I am happy to look again at stage 3 at whether there is anything more that can or should be said about disabilities, but, for the reasons that I have set out, I do not think that it makes sense to refer here to communicating in a way that best meets the needs of persons with a protected characteristic.

Amendment 72 agreed to.

Amendment 286 not moved.

Amendment 17 moved—[Ross Greer].

The two amendments speak to “advice”. The member asserts that that advice would not compel them, but, given that the advice does not exist yet, I am not sure that she can say with certainty that that advice might not suggest that that information sharing is compelled—that they are instructed, essentially, to share information. I think that the member is making a prejudgment. The wording suggests that the advice could, by its nature as advice, say whatever it says, and that will have to be interpreted accordingly.

I want to touch on the update that Mr Dey gave to the committee. He set out the early stages of considering how a unique learner number could be delivered and the very careful consideration that would be needed on an array of complex legal matters, such as data protection.

Putting in place data sharing on this scale is a lengthy process and one that requires significant work. Mr Dey has been clear that those aspects will not be resolved in the short, or even the medium, term. Although I recognise that the unique learner number would enable better tracking and monitoring of students from a widening access background, and that the outcomes of data sharing on this scale—

I would not feel comfortable giving the member a direct response on that today, because we have to be mindful that, within the educational landscape, we also have the Scottish candidate number and a wide range of other ways in which data is tracked. I would appreciate further advice from my officials on that proposal.

However, the Government is mindful of the opportunities that this idea presents, as we discussed when I was in front of the committee a few weeks ago.

The issues that Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments raise are important, but I do not think—to speak to Mr Adam’s point—that they can be delivered through the bill. Although I am not able to support these amendments today, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue with Ms Duncan-Glancy and others who have an interest—but outwith the bill process.

No, it is not.

Mr Whitfield makes fair points. I accept that he will not move amendment 258 and I keen to work with him, Mr Greer and Ms Duncan-Glancy on a resolution.

I now turn to Mr. Whitfield’s amendments 259 and 267 on embedding the UNCRC, including in the preparation of the learner charter. As set out in the policy memorandum, the Government has been clear that that should be the case. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 will also require qualifications Scotland to ensure that that is the case. I am, however, concerned that the amendments would inadvertently undermine the UNCRC act, which was passed by the Parliament just last year.

The amendment might be intended as a reminder of the UNCRC obligations, but if that is the case, it risks causing confusion about the status of UNCRC obligations in cases in which no such reminder or signpost exists in statute. Alternatively, the amendments might be intended to impose a higher duty than exists under the UNCRC act. However, that also risks undermining that act by suggesting that the duties in it that are applicable more widely are insufficient and that they establish a hierarchy of duties. Although I appreciate the good intentions, I therefore ask Mr Whitfield not to move his amendments and to rely instead upon the UNCRC act that was passed by the Parliament last year being able to operate as intended.