Chamber and committees

My apologies if this is an ill-founded attempt at an intervention, but my concern with amendment 60 relates to aspects that both John Mason and Liz Smith have highlighted. With regard to the role of parliamentary committees, they are a structure of the Parliament, for the Parliament. Ross Greer has rightly pointed out that a number of external agencies respond to the Parliament—specifically, to various committees. Does he have a concern that, if his proposed route were to be adopted, every committee would be required to adopt it for everyone who answers to them? That will shift the fundamental reason for having committees in the Parliament, which is that they are, at a high level, advisers on the minutiae of what the chamber should decide.

I understand why Ross Greer lodged amendment 60, and I acknowledge the challenges that have existed with the non-response that this committee and its predecessors have had to their requests. However, we are potentially opening up Pandora’s box that will give us significant problems further down the road and cause us to fail on more levels.

I am grateful. That proposal, with the relevant reassurance, would be an excellent way to move forward.

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the challenge that those outside this place have faced in trying to seek enforcement of the UNCRC rights, particularly with regard to a challenging definition that seems to be doing the rounds, with regard to how legislation that is tainted—I think that is the phrase that was used—and clearly excludes the UNCRC has arisen. The purpose behind the amendments was in no way to add a higher level to the rights, but to formulate a reminder of their existence and, more importantly, to give a vehicle that might be required, which I think is lacking in the bill.

I realise that it is a complex matter that goes beyond this bill. If the Government is prepared and kind enough, we can engage on how we can ensure that the UNCRC rights are more explicitly supported for those who are outside this space, either through the bill or in some other way.

On the route that Ross Greer is articulating in his amendment, the challenge that someone who is undertaking qualifications might have in contributing to that is part of the wider discussion that can be had on membership and input.

Good morning. It is still morning—just. I remind members of the committee and people watching of my entry in the register of interests, in which I declare that I received a financial payment as a result of having been a teacher before the start of this parliamentary session.

My amendments in this group relate to a number of matters, but they are all founded on the purpose that sits behind the charters. I go back to what the Scottish Government said last year about what people can expect of the charters. It said:

“The purpose of the charters is to set out what service users”—

young people who are going through the system—

“and delivery partners should expect from Qualifications Scotland.”

That relates to John Mason’s intervention about the use of the term “expectations” in some of the amendments that we are considering.

My first amendment in this group is amendment 258, which is about the importance of the learner charter—it is right that it should have such importance—and the importance that those who will look to it will place upon it. One thing that those who look to the charter will rely on is the validity of how it was initially drafted. If the drafting of the charter is done too closely to those about whom the charter speaks—in other words, those on whom the expectations are being placed—it will lose some of its credibility. Therefore, with amendment 258, I make the strong suggestion that the learner charter should be drafted by someone who is external to qualifications Scotland. Obviously, that person would need to have the appropriate expertise and knowledge, and they would be required to consult.

We have heard a lot about the requirement for, and expectation of, consultation during the discussion on amendments in this stage 2 debate. The purpose of amendment 258 is to result in a charter that better reflects the needs and rights of learners and that is free from institutional bias. Ross Greer used the phrase “the blob” earlier on, but, without denigrating anyone who suggests using that phrase, I offer “institutional bias” as a more polite phrase.

The importance of the learner charter cannot be overestimated. It is one of the important requirements in the bill and it is something that, in due course, learners in particular will look to. Giving it the additional strength and credit of not initially having been drafted internally would allow it to benefit from the new educational institutions and ideas that we have in Scotland from the start.

My other amendments in the group refer to the UNCRC. The challenges faced by young people who rely on the UNCRC rest entirely with the hodgepodge way—to use a throwaway phrase—in which the system was created. That is probably more the case with education legislation than in any other area. It is a question of which institution the acts, statutory instruments and other things were created in and the challenges that are brought as a result. It would be welcome for the entirety of this act to sit within the requirements of the UNCRC, so that young people would have a vehicle through which to explore the challenges of a conflict, of not being able to have an appeal heard as they require, and of a committee not being considered.

Amendment 259 directly and specifically indicates that the learner charter

“must seek to promote children’s rights in accordance with the UNCRC requirements.”

My other amendment in the group, amendment 267, clarifies for the avoidance of any doubt—we will talk about the definitions sections later—that

“‘UNCRC requirements’ has the same meaning as in section 1(2) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024.”

Am I right to infer that the cabinet secretary shares my concern about our being unsure about what the assessment landscape will look like in the future, and that retaining the level of versatility allowed by the framework instead of defining all this to the nth degree in primary legislation would be beneficial and would meet what a number of members have indicated is their desired goal?

On that point, I will pass over to Emma Roddick, who has questions on structure and culture in committees.

Diane Stirbu, do you want to come in?

The best-laid plans can go awry, depending on who is on the committee.

Our third agenda item is the third in a series of four oral evidence sessions in our committee effectiveness inquiry. The inquiry is seeking to answer the question of whether changes to the Parliament’s procedures and practices would help committees to work more effectively. Our call for written views on the inquiry has now closed, and the submissions will be published on our website in due course. Today, we are seeking to explore committee effectiveness in the context of changes to the committee system in other legislatures and how those have been measured and evaluated.

I welcome Professor Diana Stirbu, co-director of the centre for applied research in empowering society at London Metropolitan University, who joins us online; Professor Philip Lord Norton of Louth, professor of government and director of the centre for legislative studies at the University of Hull; Dr Stephen Holden Bates, senior lecturer in political science at the University of Birmingham; and Dr Ruth Fox, director and head of research at the Hansard Society.

This is a round-table evidence session. Although there will be the usual approach of questions from members to witnesses, it is intended that there will be opportunity for discussion between the witnesses on points in order to encourage a more open and free dialogue. There is no expectation that witnesses will answer all questions. Should anyone wish to come in on a question or in response to a point made by another witness, please indicate by catching my eye or that of the clerks. For Professor Stirbu, who is appearing remotely, I ask you to type the letter R in the chat box or pop your hand up, and I will notice and be most grateful.

As tends to be the case, you will be thrown on the mercy of the convener for the first set of questions. I want to look at the definition or meaning of “effectiveness of committees”. Is effectiveness context specific? If so, what are the factors that shape whether committees are effective in the places where the witnesses have worked and that they have observed? What is effectiveness in the context of committees?