I take the cabinet secretary’s point, but if we do not do it here, how else can we ensure that people who are not covered by the UNCRC get the same experience from the educational institutions that are delivering to people who are covered by the UNCRC? How can we ensure parity of experience if we do not do something in the bill?

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?

Indeed. The intention here is to recognise that the chief inspector must be independent of the Government. That is incredibly important but, as we heard in the evidence that was given to this committee, the bill does not recognise that.

I will speak to the amendments in the group that are in my name. Amendment 340 requires the chief inspector to share a copy of any report that is requested by the Scottish ministers and for it to be presented to the Parliament and to ministers at the same time.

Yes, I would be supportive of ensuring that equality in both directions. I hope that we will all have the time and headspace to turn our attention to amendments to that particular bill in due course. I will remind myself of this conversation at that point, as it would be entirely sensible to make the cross-reference.

My amendment 239 strengthens qualifications Scotland’s collaboration with Education Scotland to ensure that it is cognisant and takes account of recommendations from Education Scotland. The cabinet secretary made a point earlier about changes in the curriculum. That has to drive assessment and I think that we can all agree with that. The amendment seeks to strengthen that collaboration and make sure that the direction of travel is the right one, so that our young people are learning in the curriculum what they need for the future, as opposed to learning just for tests.

I move amendment 234.

This group of amendments is about making the strategic advisory council a credible, independent and inclusive voice in the governance of Scotland’s qualifications system. We in the committee have rehearsed that and, in the interests of time, I will not go into detail. However, that voice is incredibly important and has been lacking.

The amendments would protect the independence of the SAC by limiting qualifications Scotland staff representation and removing unnecessary Government involvement, ensuring that it could operate with integrity and objectivity.

Amendments 248 and 252 would broaden the representation on the strategic advisory council and strengthen the consultation duties, embedding the voices of learners, teachers, unions, parents, industry and care-experienced young people in the heart of the system. To build a qualifications system that works for everyone, we must ensure that decision making is informed by lived experience, professional expertise and the communities that the organisation serves.

The group also includes important practical changes, such as clarifying terms of office, aligning governance with that of other public bodies and reinforcing collaboration with other education bodies, including Education Scotland, which would support the effective and transparent leadership that is needed. Taken together, the amendments would help to ensure that the strategic advisory council was not just advisory in name but influential in practice, helping to rebuild trust in the system.

Amendment 245 would remove the provision for a representative of the Scottish Government to observe or participate in strategic advisory council meetings, in order to give the council the independence that it requires.

Amendment 246 would ensure that curriculum Scotland was a member of the SAC. Because of the discussion that we had last week, and we will discuss curriculum Scotland under a later group, I am not minded to move amendment 246 at this point, due to the undertaking that we all agreed about the accreditation function. However, we can talk about the amendment, of course.

Amendment 247 would bring in line the term of appointment of the convener and members of the SAC with other bodies that are controlled under the bill.

Amendment 248 would require the membership to include, but not be limited to, members who represent the interests of a wide range of stakeholders: learners, students, children and young people, teachers, college staff, trade unions, industry, higher and further education, parents, those with experience and knowledge of additional support needs, and other relevant agencies. I appreciate that that is quite a list, but we have to accept that, in education in Scotland, we need to ensure that we draw on the expertise of everybody who is around children and young people or in the education and employment sphere. That is what I have tried to do with amendment 248. In addition, it is necessary because, if the strategic advisory council is central to the new qualifications system, accountability will be crucial, and that must be to people who have direct experience in the system.

Amendment 249 requires that no more than 40 per cent of members of the SAC be members of, or staff who are employed by, qualifications Scotland.

At this stage, and for some of the reasons that my colleague Ross Greer outlined earlier regarding the language used, I am minded not to move amendment 240 but to look at how we can use some of the SCQF stuff that we have done to achieve something at stage 3.

However, I ask the cabinet secretary this: if it is not the responsibility of qualifications Scotland to simplify the system, whose responsibility is it?

I thank the member for that intervention and apologise to you, convener, for the confusion about where we were in the debate.

I heard the cabinet secretary say that she was willing to take on board the points that my colleague Martin Whitfield just made. With that—because I am reasonable and prepared to listen to the debate on the broader aspects of how to deal with the issue when we discuss it in later groups—I seek the committee’s agreement to withdraw amendment 254. Moreover, I do not intend to move amendment 355.

Amendment 254, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 10—The learner charter

The amendments in this group make the process for reviewing concerns about qualifications clear and transparent, giving stakeholders a meaningful route to raise issues and seek redress. Formalising the review process and subjecting regulations to the affirmative procedure strengthen accountability and build a culture of responsiveness and continuous improvement in qualifications Scotland.

Amendment 254 introduces a new function and requirement for qualifications Scotland to review any

“concerns relating to a qualification”

and introduces regulation-making powers for the ministers to set out that process. I do not need to remind committee members or people watching of the issue that we recently experienced in higher history, in relation to which this approach could have been incredibly useful. The effect of the amendment would be to give recourse to those with concerns about a qualification, and it would also contribute to an improved culture of transparency, which I think is sorely needed.

Amendment 355, which is consequential on amendment 254, confirms that regulation-making powers will be subject to the affirmative procedure, giving the Parliament the scrutiny power that it might need.

I move amendment 254.

I support the amendments that my colleague Ross Greer has outlined. The amendments in this group would strengthen accountability by requiring qualifications Scotland to report publicly not only on the advice that it receives from the strategic advisory council but its response to it. Including that in the annual report would reinforce the council’s role as a meaningful check on qualifications Scotland’s work and ensure that stakeholders could see how their input was shaping decision making.

Amendment 284, in my name, would require any advice from the strategic advisory council and qualifications Scotland’s response to be included in the annual report. Amendment 283 is a consequential amendment to enable amendment 284.