Chamber and committees

I thank Miles Briggs and Pam Duncan-Glancy for explaining the thinking behind the amendments and I thank committee members for their thoughtful contributions. Overall, I am pleased that we collectively agree that Scotland needs a national body with a clear focus on the curriculum to drive improvement and support implementation, although I argue that we already have that. That is why I announced to the Parliament last June, via a Government-initiated question, that the work of Education Scotland would be refocused, ensuring that its primary focus is on leading curriculum review and improvement. As members will know, the curriculum improvement cycle is now well under way, and Education Scotland is successfully leading that work through engagement with teachers and young people.

In considering the amendments, the principle of legislating only when necessary has been at the forefront of my mind, as has the intended purpose of the bill, which is to establish qualifications Scotland and the office of HM chief inspector of education. I ask members to keep those points in their minds as we consider the group.

I turn first to amendment 290. Although I understand Mr Kerr’s rationale for setting out Education Scotland’s functions in legislation, I believe that the same result can be achieved without the need for legislation. In fact, the cluttered landscape that Mr Briggs spoke to will not be aided by creating a new national body.

I recognise members’ concerns that the role of Education Scotland, and its relationship to other national bodies and the sector more broadly, needs to be clearer. I agree with that sentiment whole-heartedly. It needs to be clear to local authorities, teachers and practitioners what services Education Scotland offers, and when and how to access them. There must also be confidence in the quality of those services.

After the separation of the inspectorate, which will follow the—I hope—successful passage of this bill, we will need to continue to work with Education Scotland to define its role in and relationship with the system and to clearly communicate that role to teachers, practitioners and children and young people. More broadly, however, teachers who have been working in Scotland for a number of years will be particularly au fait with Learning and Teaching Scotland, as it was, which existed previously. That support mechanism to the curriculum is currently well understood by many teachers across the country.

As I mentioned, Education Scotland has a key role in relation to curriculum review and improvement, which includes the curriculum improvement cycle and supporting local authorities. However, it also works on inclusion, behaviour, additional support needs and closing the attainment gap. It is important that we make best use of Education Scotland’s professional expertise across priorities other than curriculum, some of which I just mentioned.

Another area that I am sure that Mr Briggs and Mr Kerr—although he is not here now—will be familiar with is developing leadership skills. Mr Kerr has been pretty consistent in making that point last week and earlier today. Education Scotland will build on its success in that area, creating leadership capacity across the system. With those points in mind, I am concerned that the amendment as drafted would narrow Education Scotland’s focus too much. Building on its primary focus on the curriculum, Education Scotland has much to add across other national priority areas that impact our teachers and young people, and I would not want that to stop or be curtailed unnecessarily.

Mr Kerr’s amendment does not take account of other national bodies and services that have a key role to play in delivering aspects of Scotland’s curriculum. I am particularly mindful, for example, of Skills Development Scotland, which includes our careers service and Developing the Young Workforce.

In addition, Education Scotland is an executive agency of the Scottish ministers. Statutory functions should not be conferred on such agencies, as they do not—as I think that the committee has heard today—have their own separate legal personality from that of the Scottish ministers. In legal terms, there is, strictly speaking, nothing on which that duty would operate.

For those reasons, I cannot support Mr Kerr’s amendment. However, I note the committee’s interest in the role of Education Scotland, and I would be happy to engage with members through the reform process outwith this bill. Education Scotland’s functions and governance arrangements will continue to be published, as they are now, to ensure that there is transparency and clarity for the system.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 293, 294 and 296 would establish, as we have heard, a new body called curriculum Scotland, set out its functions and place requirements on it to prepare and publish an annual report. Although I appreciate the intention behind the amendments—and, again, I welcome the cross-party agreement that Scotland needs a national body that is clearly focused on the curriculum—I cannot support them. Indeed, as I have previously stated, I would argue that that body already exists.

As members are aware, and as we have discussed, Scotland’s public services are currently under significant fiscal pressure. I do not believe that establishing a brand-new curriculum body in addition to Education Scotland meets the principles of public sector reform around driving efficiency and effectiveness. It would also run contrary to the Government’s commitment to creating no new, small, stand-alone public bodies. I hope that committee members share the view that creating brand-new public bodies via amendments to legislation should not be done without first considering the necessary policy, legal, financial and delivery implications.

Mr Whitfield’s earlier point about flexibility is really salient. The member will be aware that what is currently the SQA—what will be qualifications Scotland—is looking across the piece at the wide variety of qualifications that are being delivered in our schools. Those have changed substantially since the member and I were in school, and we need to be mindful of that flexibility and allow the organisation the opportunity to move and respond accordingly. Therefore, I agree with the sentiment behind the member’s point.

I cannot support amendments 229 and 231, which seek to place in legislation operational arrangements between the two organisations. Amendment 229 seeks to ensure coherence in naming conventions, but I believe that that will be best resolved through the working that we already have and through the collaborative relationship between qualifications Scotland and the SCQF Partnership. Notwithstanding that, I think that support for the principle of amendment 238 delivers that. I will speak to that in a moment.

Before I do so, though, I want to set out why I cannot support amendment 231. As drafted, it seeks to place the requirement to enter into a shared confidence arrangement in the context of qualifications Scotland’s own quality assurance functions. Those functions are for qualifications Scotland to satisfy itself that the arrangements that educational establishments have in place for delivering qualifications and related assessments are appropriate. Those quality assurance functions protect the integrity of qualifications and ensure that all those taking qualifications do so in a way that is fair and equitable. The SCQF Partnership has independent oversight of the credit rating functions of the credit rating bodies such as the SQA.

In its letter to the committee, the SCQF Partnership clearly set out its role in the system and the relationship that it has with the SQA. It is clear from that that the SCQF Partnership has no role in the operational quality assurance processes for qualifications that qualifications Scotland and other awarding bodies will put in place to support delivery. It is therefore hard for me to see why the SCQF Partnership must enter into an agreement with qualifications Scotland on those particular matters.

Although there may be some concerns about how the SCQF Partnership and the SQA work together, I understand that the chief executive of the SCQF Partnership and the interim chief executive of the SQA are working closely to strengthen that approach.

I hope that my intention to work with Ms Duncan-Glancy on amendment 238, alongside the assurances that I have provided on reviewed arrangements between the two organisations, provides the reassurance needed. I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to press amendment 229 and not to move amendment 231 and her connected amendment 354.

Mr Kerr’s amendment 289 seeks to create a separate framework for qualifications that is managed by the SCQF Partnership. That suggestion contradicts the purpose of the existing national framework, which is a single national qualifications framework for Scotland. Therefore, to have a framework that is exclusively for qualifications Scotland would arguably undermine the principle of a cohesive and simple framework for the whole country. For those reasons, I do not support the amendment, and I encourage others to do the same.

Forgive me—it is in relation to the wording around knowledge and skills learning. I would like to revisit that with Ms Duncan-Glancy ahead of stage 3, if she supports that approach. I would like to discuss some tweaks to the terminology.

Mr Greer’s amendment 6 would place a duty on qualifications Scotland to

“have regard to the economic, social and environmental priorities of the Scottish Ministers.”

Alignment with Government objectives is a fundamental obligation for Scotland’s public bodies. It will be the role of the board of qualifications Scotland to ensure that. Scottish ministers also set out priorities for public bodies via strategic guidance letters annually, which include priorities in the areas that Mr Greer lists. Although I do not believe that his amendment is strictly needed, I am content for it to be supported in order to provide additional assurances that those factors will be considered.

Mr Greer has also lodged amendment 34, which seeks to ensure that qualifications Scotland will act in a “transparent and accountable” way. I agree that that must be a founding tenet of qualifications Scotland, just as it should be, and is, for all public bodies, but I cannot support amendment 34 as drafted and am keen to work with him on an alternative approach. It would be more effective to define the activities and processes that would deliver that transparency and accountability, rather than having an overarching principle as is expressed in the amendment as currently drafted.

What constitutes “transparent and accountable” behaviour is often open to interpretation, which means that qualifications Scotland could be behaving in line with best practice on transparency and accountability but that those behaviours could be challenged as not being transparent or accountable enough. The bill already gives many examples of activities and processes that support greater transparency and accountability, such as the interest committees, the charters and the reporting duties, and many amendments from Mr Greer and other members also seek to embed specific transparent and accountable behaviours, so I ask Mr Greer not to move amendment 34, with a view to working with me to build on that work ahead of stage 3.

Finally, I turn to Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 240, which seeks to prescribe a duty on qualifications Scotland to

“have regard to the desirability of simplifying, or ensuring the coherence of, the qualifications system”.

The simplification of our qualifications system was one of the key recommendations that the Scottish Government accepted from the independent review of qualifications and assessment.

Members will be aware that the SQA is already taking a range of actions to support the delivery of that commitment, and qualifications Scotland will take those forward. For example, the SQA is undertaking a review and rationalisation of its qualifications offer. However, the qualifications, training and skills system is vast and has many actors with aligned, but often different, responsibilities. So, although qualifications Scotland will have a role in that, and will work towards simplifying its own qualifications offer, it will not have an oversight role for the entire system and it is therefore not within the gift of qualifications Scotland alone to simplify the entire system or to ensure coherence across it.

For those reasons, I do not support amendment 240 and I ask the member not to move it.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I cannot support this group of amendments lodged by Mr Greer. For more than 150 years, the process of appointing the sovereign’s inspectors of education and naming them after the sovereign has been used to underline their responsibility to evaluate and report independently without interference from ministers.

I have been clear on the need to increase public confidence in the independence of the inspectorate, and the continuation of that—which was recommended by Professor Muir—emphasises the distinctive and historical role of inspectors in our education system.

I thank members of the committee for setting out the purposes of their amendments. I welcome Sue Webber back to the committee, even though she is trying to abolish my existence. Broadly, as we have heard, the amendments in this group seek to curtail or remove ministerial powers across part 2, with the aim of seeking further independence from Government of the office of chief inspector.

First, there are very good reasons overall why ministers should continue to have the direct relationship with the chief inspector that is set out in the bill. Members raised a contribution from Graham Donaldson, who served as the chief inspector some time ago. However, it is worth reminding members that Graham Donaldson, when he was chief inspector, had no power under legislation, and the same applies to our current interim chief inspector. Because their existence was not specified in legislation, every inspection that has happened under their watch has been ordered by ministers. Members should be mindful of that difference.

As we heard from Ross Greer, ministers have a duty to endeavour to improve the education system and to take necessary enforcement action, as well as having regulatory powers in relation to our independent schools. Without having even a limited power to direct inspection, it would be extremely difficult for ministers to fulfil those duties.

On a number of important issues around the system, ministers have used their powers to ask the chief inspector to investigate and report, using a thematic inspection model—again, I think that Mr Greer made that point. Those issues have included behaviour; attendance; the national thematic inspection on maths, which, as members will recall, occurred on the back of the results of the 2022 programme for international student assessment, on which I will not dwell; and local authority improvement functions, which Willie Rennie rightly raised. Members might be interested to hear that the chief inspector published a report on that—in February, I think; certainly very recently—and it is a really interesting piece of work.

In the past 10 years, Scottish ministers have used the power to request that HM inspectors carry out a special inspection on eight occasions—including twice since I took up post. On all occasions, those inspections focused on specific ministerial concerns that had been brought to ministers’ attention in the first instance by HM inspectors or the registrar of independent schools. Therefore, although it is anticipated that the power would be used rarely, it is important that it is available.

I have finished, convener.

I thank Mr Greer for his question. I am not completely convinced that deficiencies in the legislation led to the challenges in the SQA to which we are all very alive. However, I take his point about current legislation perhaps not changing if we follow a similar route. The issue here is with the word “prioritise” and the impact that that would have. I am happy to work with him on that to provide reassurances.

Mr Greer’s amendment 5 would require qualifications Scotland to provide the strategic advisory council with the information that it has requested. I note that he has lodged an alternative option in group 13 through amendment 61, which I fully support, so I ask that he does not move amendment 5.

I turn finally to the range of amendments that seek to place additional duties on considerations for qualifications Scotland to factor into the exercise of its functions. Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 234 and 235 aim to ensure that qualifications Scotland promotes education and training that takes account of Scotland’s economic needs and ensures that the body also takes account of developments in knowledge and skills learning in relation to qualifications Scotland. Those two amendments embed activity that qualifications Scotland will inherently need to undertake to ensure that its services remain aligned to our system’s needs and that qualifications remain relevant. I fully expect that to be a natural part of its work, but to deliver additional assurances, I support amendment 234.

I also support the principle of amendment 235, but I am interested in working with Ms Duncan-Glancy on some minor terminology changes ahead of stage 3, and I therefore ask that she does not move that amendment.

They will be made under the negative procedure.

Amendment 260, in the name of Ms Duncan-Glancy, also seeks to embed in the preparation of the charters, a new right for adult learners who are undertaking qualifications to receive education in a way that meets their needs. I do not believe that this bill is the way to give adults new rights that are not, to my knowledge, already embedded in the system. It should also not fall exclusively to qualifications Scotland to implement those rights, particularly when it does not have sole responsibility for delivering education that meets individuals’ needs. I ask the member not to move amendment 260, but I would be interested in discussing the point with her outwith the bill process.

I am not sighted on the specifics of that, but I would just observe that the exam diet began last Friday. That might have played a role.

The amendments in this group would create a new office-holder of chief regulator of examinations. Although I cannot support the amendments or the approach that they set out, I am interested to explore all the issues that the convener has raised and to work with other interested parties.

On Mr Rennie’s point, I do not think that we can divorce the convener’s proposals from our wider discussion about accreditation. That has been a common theme in members’ contributions to the discussion.

Mr Ross’s amendments seek to add to the education system an entirely new regulatory role, the remit of which would be focused solely on examinations and assessment, rather than on qualifications as a whole. I want to talk about some of the challenges of such an approach, before going on to talk about the opportunities.

I am advised that there is no equivalent body in comparable jurisdictions—for example, in England and Wales—that regulates only the examinations and assessment part of qualifications. The regulators in comparable jurisdictions oversee all aspects of examinations, qualifications and assessment. As Jackie Dunbar said, it appears that the proposed regulatory office-holder would be responsible for regulating only qualifications Scotland examinations and assessments; it would not be responsible for regulating those of other awarding bodies that operate in the system.

Ross Greer raised issues—John Mason might have done, too—in relation to the Scottish Government’s commitment to create no new small, stand-alone public bodies. Mr Ross’s proposal would create a new office-holder who would be accountable to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body at a time when, as members know, the Parliament has recently voted for a moratorium on the creation of other such bodies. I also believe—and I hope that committee members share this view—that creating brand-new public bodies via amendments should not, as we have just discussed, be done without first considering the financial, policy and legal delivery implications.

Although I do not believe that there is a need for such a body in the system, and I cannot support the amendments in the form in which they are currently set out, I very much understand the interest in ensuring that our examinations and assessments for qualifications are reliable in recognising attainment and achievement. I also very much recognise the calls that have been made for action to be taken to increase the level of trust in the system, which the convener rightly spoke about, in how qualifications are reviewed and in how any concerns or complaints are taken into account and listened to and responded to as part of those processes.