Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mr Whitfield raises a really important point about this legislation and about how it cuts across the interpretation of the UNCRC act. Ms Somerville led on that legislation in Parliament, so I would be content to engage with her directly on the issue. Mr Whitfield’s points do not just relate to the bill that we are considering today, and I would not wish to use the bill as a test bed, as it were, in that regard. The Government must have a coherent approach to those issues, as opposed to addressing them narrowly via this bill without fully comprehending the alternative implications that that might have—for example, I spoke to the hierarchies that could be created with other legislation and to the unintended consequences.

I very much take Mr Whitfield’s points, so if he is content for me to do so, I will ask Ms Somerville to engage with him directly on the issues, which are much broader than this bill and which I do not believe can be fully resolved through it.

I am grateful to Mr Greer and Ms Duncan-Glancy for setting out the purpose of their amendments. Amendment 71, in the name of Mr Greer, requires ministers to publish the reasons for the rejection of a corporate plan. Given the intention of increasing transparency and accountability, I am happy to support the amendment. On Mr Greer’s amendment 280, it is standard practice for the board to approve the corporate plan, and I expect that to continue in qualifications Scotland. Given that the amendment simply places into legislation what already happens, I can support it. However, I would like to revisit the wording of the amendment for stage 3, because, at present, it applies only to the very first corporate plan rather than to any replacement plan. I therefore ask Mr Greer not to press amendment 280 so that it can be adjusted accordingly for stage 3.

Amendment 282, in the name of Ms Duncan-Glancy, requires additional explanations in the corporate plan on the processes to be used with the strategic advisory council. Such subject matter is usually covered by non-legislative processes, such as terms of reference and standing orders, and it is not something that we would expect to be in a strategic document such as a corporate plan. However, I recognise the interest in transparency and in setting out the working relationships between qualifications Scotland and the strategic advisory council. Given that, I am happy to support the amendment in general. However, it would be helpful to revisit it for stage 3 in order to address a point of detail with regard to the difference between the meaning of the words “work with” and “consult with” in the amendment in the context of the strategic advisory council being a consultative body. Furthermore, I am keen to change where the publishing requirement sits, as I do not think that it sits best in the corporate plan. I ask the member not to press the amendment and to work with me on adjusting it to sit elsewhere in the bill for stage 3.

Amendment 35, in the name of Mr Greer, calls for an additional consultation with specified stakeholders, with the aim of ensuring that the plan is aligned with the economic, environmental and social priorities of ministers.

I would expect consultation and engagement on these matters to be continuous and on-going, and not restricted to the creation of a corporate plan. Qualifications Scotland will also have a number of forums that will feed into the development of a corporate plan, including the new interest committees and the strategic advisory council, with the council being optimally placed to provide wider perspectives on these matters.

Members will recall that I supported Mr Greer’s related amendment 6 in group 10, which requires qualifications Scotland to align with ministers’ economic, environmental and social priorities. Although I believe that that overarching provision in group 10 is quite effective at capturing the range of considerations that the organisation requires to have in mind, I recognise the value of amendment 35, and I am therefore happy to support it.

That is quite an open-ended question.

Ross Greer talked about my time on the committee and the frustrations, which I well recall, that we experienced at that time with the qualifications body. The amendments that we are debating today cover a vast array of matters. There is a tendency to prescribe in primary legislation things that are informed, essentially, by the historical experience of an organisation. We need to be mindful that the discussion is as much about cultural change in the organisation as it is about the bill. The bill will go only so far in changing the nature of the qualifications body. It makes a number of provisions that will strengthen the consultation provision that we have just talked about.

However, fundamentally, when it comes to Ross Greer’s point about engagement with ministers, I have regular engagement with the qualifications body. I talked last week to a group—I cannot recall which, convener—about the decisions that have been taken on separating out the roles of the chief executive and the chief examiner.

A lot of change is already taking place in that organisation and does not necessarily appear in the bill. We need to be mindful not to create a bill that is unwieldy; it must allow the organisation to get on with the day job of running the qualifications and work better with teachers, our young people, parents, carers and wider stakeholders. That is what we all want it to deliver.

I accept Ross Greer’s point about challenge. However, I go back to the points that I made about amendment 60 setting a precedent for a body that has had, it is fair to say, a challenging history in its engagement with the Parliament. I am not necessarily sure that the answer to that is amending the legislation in the way that Ross Greer has suggested.

In addition, Liz Smith made a crucial point about wider accountability, the scrutiny of parliamentary committees and how that functions when it comes to NDPBs’ accountability to ministers. That is a wider piece of work that we probably need to consider as a Parliament, albeit perhaps not in the bill. However, I take the point that Ross Greer has expressed.

I thank Mr Greer and Ms Duncan-Glancy for explaining the purpose and rationale of their amendments. In response to the committee’s stage 1 report, I was clear that a key principle of the new qualifications body would be greater transparency and accountability, supported by consultation and engagement across the education system. The amendments that were lodged seek to strengthen that principle.

Mr Greer’s amendment 8 seeks to place clearer requirements on qualifications Scotland to consult its own internal interest committees and those who take or teach qualifications. The main function of the interest committees is to advise qualifications Scotland. Therefore, there is an expectation that qualifications Scotland will consult with those committees as part of that process. In my view, it seems unnecessary to place that requirement in legislation.

I have some concerns, too, about the specifics of amendment 8 as drafted, not least because qualifications Scotland might sometimes be acting through those committees.

There is also the possibility that we end up eroding the concept of advisory committees, whose very purpose is to give advice, by making it seem as though, without that provision, their advice would not be sought.

However, I would be happy to work with Mr Greer for stage 3 to seek to clarify the relationship between the body and its committees in a way that does not treat the committees as though they were external consultees, and to insert a consultation requirement with respect to those who are taking or teaching qualifications. On that basis, I ask Mr Greer not to press amendment 8, or amendment 7, which is consequential to amendment 8.

I turn to efforts to increase transparency. My amendment 59 requires ministers to publish any guidance that they have issued to qualifications Scotland that relates to how the body consults with the strategic advisory council. Although that is a relatively minor addition to the bill, I consider it important that that guidance is publicly available, and I hope that members will support the amendment.

Ms Duncan-Glancy and Mr Greer have lodged amendments that seek to define the proceedings and actions that are taken as part of the relationship between qualifications Scotland and the strategic advisory council. Although I am supportive of amendment 58—read with amendment 57—and amendment 242 in principle, the place for defining that level of detail, if it is to be done at all, is in the regulations that will establish the council. Section 9(2)(g) of the bill specifically enables that to happen. Doing that under regulations will be much more flexible, and it will also allow for changes to be made in the light of experience, if necessary. I therefore ask both members not to press their amendments. I intend to bring forward those regulations as soon as possible once the bill has passed, which I hope will happen.

Mr Greer has also lodged amendment 60, which requires qualifications Scotland to “have regard to” views that are provided by the parliamentary education committee. Although I am sympathetic to the principle, it is already the case that, through the accountability of public bodies to Scottish ministers and, in turn, ministers’ accountability to Parliament, qualifications Scotland will inherently need to consider the views of any parliamentary committee for education. I would be reluctant to set out a requirement for direct consideration in legislation, as that would help to set an unhelpful precedent—as I think we heard from members this morning.

I am also concerned that such an amendment would, in effect, draw qualifications Scotland into a direct line of accountability to Parliament, which is not appropriate for a non-departmental public body. They are—and they should be—accountable to ministers, and ministers are, in turn, held to account by Parliament. In turn, this committee holds me to account, and it will be able to take evidence directly from qualifications Scotland at any time. That is the well-established practice for NDPBs, and I am concerned that, by deviating from it in any way, we will end up with confusion around reporting lines and political accountability. For that reason, I cannot support amendment 60. I ask Mr Greer not to press his amendment, noting the opportunities that Parliament and the committee already have to scrutinise qualifications Scotland effectively. I also note the points that Ms Smith has raised in relation to the wider cross-Parliament work in that regard.

No. The SCQF is a kind of currency converter for the totality of qualifications that are delivered. One of the challenges that was raised in Professor Louise Hayward’s report was the lack of understanding across the country in relation to how that framework is applied to qualifications. That is the point that Mr Kerr was making. We need to look at that issue, which is the point that I made to Ms Duncan-Glancy.

There have been suggestions in the past that, for example—I think this might have come from Professor Hayward’s report—the title of “higher” would be removed from qualifications, but I would not support that position. In responding to Professor Hayward’s report, I have said that we need to lean into the points that Ms Duncan-Glancy made about helping to understand how SCQF accreditation is applied to the qualifications. To go back to the points that Mr Kerr made, there is a disconnect between the SCQF’s role in the system and how that is applied to the qualifications body. The issue is also about communication. I am very amenable to having those discussions with members.

I am sympathetic to the point that Mr Rennie raises. Mr Greer spoke about the school inspection reports that I receive every Friday from the chief inspector and that I read diligently. Mr Rennie will know that there is a review being led by the interim chief inspector in relation to inspection reports and how those are compiled. I hope that he is engaged with the chief inspector on that. However, I take his point about identifying those challenges and giving advice to and challenging ministers, as is the responsibility of the chief inspector.

It would be the negative procedure.

Together, amendments 247 and 249 seek to ensure that the membership of the council would be made up of a majority of external members and that they could not be appointed for more than eight years in total. I am not able to support either of those amendments. In relation to amendment 247, it is important that we do not restrict appointment terms in legislation. Although such a restriction might work for larger organisations, which can draw on a wider pool of individuals, it might be more challenging for small organisations to provide replacement members, and we would risk losing specialist input and views. We heard some of that debate play out last week. A more workable solution would be for appointment periods to be determined at the time of appointment.

On amendment 249, our intention is that the council would be predominantly made up of external strategic stakeholders in order to fulfil its stated purpose. The proportion of qualifications Scotland staff or board members that Ms Duncan-Glancy suggests seems too high; although it is a maximum, it might set expectations of adhering to that composition. As I noted in my earlier comments, prescribing membership and numbers can be addressed outwith legislation, or in the regulations that establish the council, to which I have just spoken. I am keen to work with Ms Duncan-Glancy on that, alongside the membership considerations, and I therefore ask her not to move amendment 249.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 245 expressly excludes the Scottish ministers and their representatives from attending the strategic advisory council. Unsurprisingly, I cannot support that. The council will be established by ministers for the purpose of advising both qualifications Scotland and ministers in relation to qualifications Scotland. It is therefore important that ministers or their representatives can support and attend the council as necessary. As ministers are accountable to the Parliament for qualifications Scotland and its council, it is paramount that there is an appropriate ministerial relationship with the council. I therefore ask members not to support amendment 245, if it is pressed.

No—for the reasons that I have set out. Regarding the member’s point about naming conventions, that was an example that I gave to Mr Rennie and was not necessarily specific to her amendment. I have already committed, in my response to Professor Hayward’s review, to looking at the naming convention as part of our approach to reform, so that is being taken forward.

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.