Chamber and committees

I start by setting out my rationale for which amendments I will press or move and which I will not in this particular group. I have listened carefully to everyone who has responded, and I think that I can hear a consensus developing around the need for co-production, co-design and consultation. In that respect, I hope that, when we come to consider the relevant amendments, my decision on whether to press or move them will be reflected in the numbers. I will not move or press my amendments in that regard in order that we can work together across parties at stage 3 to bring out some consultation or co-design process. Amendment 255 is the start of that, so I will not press it.

However, I would like to move the amendments on compliance, which I think are important. The points on monitoring are welcome, and I hope that I can get support for amendment 285 in that respect.

On the amendments on parents and young people, I support Miles Briggs’s amendment 130 and I recognise the points that have been made about co-design and co-production.

My amendment 278, which would require the additional level of scrutiny that we spoke about a moment ago, is important, and the committees that it refers to have a key part in that scrutiny, so I am minded to move it.

My amendment 275 specifies people who should be consulted about the post-school learner and practitioner charter. It is important that we get those voices heard throughout the process. However, again, I would be prepared to work at stage 3 to see whether we can get consensus on improving the drafting of the amendment, as long as we keep the principle that those broad groups of people need to have a say in what the charters do.

I spoke briefly about my amendment 285 a moment ago. If qualifications Scotland fails to satisfy expectations, it should say why and what it will do about that. That could be considered to be a bit of a compromise amendment on compliance, and I hope that I can get support for it. However, as I said, I will test the point on compliance at this stage. With that, I conclude my remarks.

Amendment 255, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 256 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to.

Amendments 257 to 260 not moved.

Amendment 261 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].

I thank the cabinet secretary for that clarification. This is more of a catch-all to ensure that we cover all the people who need to be covered for the sorts of communication that are required. I am not sure that I agree with the cabinet secretary’s rationale, but I understand it and I know the groups that are protected in the 2010 act. However, I do welcome the discussion.

I also want to make a point about the definitions. I do not see how the definitions that the cabinet secretary has set out would not still be useful if my amendment were to pass. I do not see the amendments as being mutually exclusive. I intend to vote for mine—if I move it, which I am minded to do—and for the cabinet secretary’s definition, given that it could be useful to set out provision for BSL. I do not think that setting out that definition, as it is drafted, would be problematic for my amendment.

On the other amendments in the group, I think that Ross Greer’s amendments 17 and 23, at this moment in time, pre-empt the conclusion of our consideration of the Scottish Languages Bill by putting Scots on an equal footing. I wonder whether it is appropriate to do that in this particular set of amendments.

When it comes to other aspects of the bill, such as the inclusion of BSL and those with protected characteristics with the specific aim of making sure that communication is inclusive for all, I urge members to consider supporting amendment 286.

Forgive me.

I appreciate the points that the cabinet secretary has made, and I understand that the convener has amendments in that space in group 21. I am reasonable, so I am prepared to listen to that discussion and think about how we can take the issues forward.

However, I am quite clear that there needs to be a mechanism to enable concerns to be addressed. I acknowledge that the convener has put forward suggestions about that mechanism, as I have done in amendment 254, and I would like to hear at least an acceptance from the cabinet secretary that something needs to exist in order for the review to be looked at. Perhaps she can intervene in order to confirm that.

This is not only about higher history; there have, in recent history, been other problems with exams, not least, of course, what happened in 2020, and there should be the ability to review those qualifications and how the exams are carried out. I think that the Government has a role in that respect, but if it does not want that role, and if we do not want the qualifications body to be seen to be marking its own homework, I am interested to see the alternative that the Government puts forward.

On that basis—

Yes.

Amendment 282 would ensure that the strategic advisory council’s role is not just consultative but also visible by requiring qualifications Scotland to show, in its corporate plan, how it works with the strategic advisory council and responds to its advice. Embedding that in the corporate plan would strengthen transparency and reinforce the council’s influence in shaping the strategic direction of qualifications Scotland. The amendment adds to the other amendments in the group in the name of Ross Greer.

Requiring transparency in how qualifications Scotland will work with the strategic advisory council and respond to its advice by placing that in the corporate plan will give assurance to people who are looking to ensure that qualifications Scotland is operating differently to the way that the current body operates and that the people who are part of the strategic advisory council, including, crucially, those whom my colleague Ross Greer just set out, have an opportunity to influence the organisation’s corporate plan. That is why amendment 282, in my name, is important.

I thank the member for finishing the point before taking my intervention, because it has helped me to understand the rationale a little bit. The point that I was going to make was about whether the charters would have set out things that the organisation had to do, even if the pandemic had made it difficult to continue doing them.

That would not have been unusual—the pandemic made it difficult to do a lot of things, and emergency legislation was put in place in recognition of that—but do you accept that it would have been better to have had charters in place, in order to set out what the organisation should have been doing, even if it meant that some other aspects had to happen, through regulation or emergency legislation, in recognition of the fact that we were in the middle of a global pandemic? Some of what could have been set out in charters might have prevented some of what we saw in 2020.

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

As the cabinet secretary just said, “However”, I wonder whether there was about to be a slight change in tack—I hope that I have not pre-empted that.

Would the Government support the principle of having the unique learner number, and of putting that in legislation, with the data-sharing aspect being seen as a benefit of that but not necessarily set out in legislation?

Will the minister take an intervention?