Chamber and committees

I enjoyed the exchanges with members and Mr Adam’s description of the “lone wolf” regulator.

I want to pick up on the point that the convener made about engagement with the SQA, because it is my intention, when we complete stage 2—which I hope that we will do next week—to arrange a cross-party meeting so that all interested MSPs can talk to the SQA about its wider work in relation to accreditation and some of the options that have been discussed this week.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments seek to insert into the bill a new section to require qualifications Scotland to consider whether to review a qualification that it has devised when it has been made aware of concerns. It also seeks to give Scottish ministers the power to make regulations that would stipulate the processes and procedures for raising concerns and conducting a review.

I am not able to support the amendments for the following reasons. Section 2 of the bill already allows qualifications Scotland to review its qualifications. Indeed, that is something that the new body would undertake regularly, as the SQA already does.

Not only are the amendments unnecessary, but they are also, I believe, somewhat problematic in relation to how they would address the provision. I could, in principle, support the requirement for qualifications Scotland to consider a review of a qualification based on the fact that significant concerns had been raised, but I would fully expect, as has been the case at the SQA, for all timely and appropriate reviews of qualifications to take account of any concerns that have been raised in relation to a qualification. The SQA’s code of practice outlines the framework by which it safeguards the integrity of its qualifications and assessment standards to ensure public confidence, and qualifications Scotland will have a similarly robust code to support its quality assurance.

The review of qualifications, including those about which concerns have been raised, must be proportionate to the qualification and the nature of any concerns. Although I support the principle of ensuring that concerns can influence reviews, I do not believe that it is right to prescribe a one-size-fits-all process in legislation, as the amendment would seek to do via regulations that Scottish ministers would make.

As I noted during our discussion on group 7, I am keen that we discuss further, ahead of stage 3, the processes for quality assuring and reviewing school qualifications and the separate role of accreditation as it operates across the post-school sector. I note, too, the convener’s amendments in group 21, which focus on similar matters; I would also be interested in including those amendments in those discussions ahead of stage 3, as I am particularly interested in understanding the intentions and potential options around how concerns are raised and addressed.

I thank members for explaining the reasons for their amendments. I will address them in groups, according to their intention.

Amendments 61, 62 and 66 all serve the purpose of improving transparency and effectiveness in how the strategic advisory council will operate. The amendments will make the council much more impactful to better shape qualifications Scotland’s decisions. That includes amendment 62, which seeks to ensure that

“members of staff of Qualifications Scotland”

are not

“members of the council.”

For that reason, I support Mr Greer’s amendments 61, 62 and 66.

Also to support the effectiveness of the council, I have lodged amendments 63, 64 and 65. Together, those amendments ensure that regulations will be made to ensure that the council consults partners as part of its formulation of advice. Naturally, that includes qualifications Scotland and its interest committees, as well as others that it views appropriate to consult.

I listened to Mr Greer’s comments on amendment 9, but I think that amendments 63, 64 and 65 achieve a more desirable effect. However, having listened to his contribution, I am prepared not to move those amendments if he is content to work together on a stage 3 amendment that we can both support. His amendment requires the council to consult with those who are taking and teaching qualifications. That creates unnecessary duplication and detracts from the purpose of the council, which is to give strategic advice.

The engagement between the council and the interest committees will also canvas views from children, young people and other learners and teachers. I am not able to support Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 252 for that reason. I also cannot support Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 251, which requires consultation with Education Scotland, given that we would expect Education Scotland to be represented on the council. However, I accept that we are all looking to ensure that appropriate consultation takes place and I am happy to work with members to try to come to a mutually agreeable solution in advance of stage 3.

I am happy not to press the amendments that I set out. I ask members to do the same to create space for that discussion.

Mr Greer raises an important point on the timetabling of qualifications and the hours associated with those qualifications. I raised the same point with the SQA some years ago, when I was sitting on that side of the table along with Mr Greer and Ms Smith. Mr Greer is absolutely right to raise points about the SQA and Education Scotland not having good working relationships in delivering those qualifications. However, part of the challenge is how we have teachers embedded in those organisations.

During discussions on the first group of amendments, I spoke about some of the work that I have introduced in relation to the schools unit in Education Scotland. We have a headteacher in there who has been seconded out of school and who will be in charge of leading that qualifications work. It is hugely important to have qualified teachers on the ground informing what we are doing in all aspects of qualifications reform. That is also why we have headteachers working to lead the curriculum improvement cycle, which is also relevant here.

I hear the arguments being put. I also know that the background to the bill is the lack of trust in the qualifications body among the teaching profession and parents, carers and young people who have come through the system. It is about rebuilding trust. Some of the changes that we have introduced in relation to the schools unit and to working differently with our teachers on curriculum improvement address some of that.

Putting that wording into the legislation is perhaps overly prescriptive. I am not necessarily sure that it is required at this time, although I am listening to the arguments.

I have said that I am happy to have that discussion with Ms Duncan-Glancy ahead of stage 3, although it is fair to say that the way in which the amendments are drafted, particularly in relation to Education Scotland, is going to be problematic, because it does not have its own legal personality separate from that of the Scottish ministers. We need to be careful, because Education Scotland is not established in statute. The way that the amendment is drafted would not have the effect that Ms Duncan-Glancy desires, although I am supportive of the requirement in principle.

Amendment 233 would require qualifications Scotland to work with others, as opposed to the bill’s current reference to

“the desirability of working ... with others”.

The amendment goes further than is necessary and weakens qualifications Scotland’s ability to make judgments about who it should work with. I think that the existing wording of the bill would still achieve what Ms Duncan-Glancy wants. I understand the point behind amendment 233, although I do not support the amendment itself. There are amendments in groups 8 and 10 that I do support and that will go some way towards assuring the member that qualifications Scotland will work effectively with others in the system—for example, the amendments that would require qualifications Scotland to have regard to other public bodies throughout the Scottish education and skills system, such as Education Scotland, Skills Development Scotland, the Scottish Funding Council and the SCQF Partnership. I hope that I have given Ms Duncan-Glancy a level of reassurance and that I have persuaded her to reconsider moving amendment 233.

I thank Ms Duncan-Glancy for her amendments on qualifications Scotland’s responsibilities to work with others, and I agree that it is an important matter for us to consider. Amendment 232 specifies that qualifications Scotland must work in collaboration with Education Scotland. That fully aligns with my intention for increased consultation and I support the intention behind the amendment. However, Education Scotland is an executive agency of the Scottish ministers and statutory functions should not be conferred on such agencies, because they do not have their own legal personality separate from that of the Scottish ministers. In legal terms, there is, strictly speaking, no basis on which the duty would operate.

Similarly, I note that amendment 243 seeks a reciprocal arrangement for Education Scotland to work with qualifications Scotland, although the requirements are slightly uneven because a more qualified duty would be imposed on Education Scotland. For the same reasons, I support the principle behind amendment 243, but it will need to be reworked. I will be happy to work with Ms Duncan-Glancy to adjust those amendments for stage 3 and I ask that she does not press or move those amendments.

The regulations have not yet been brought forward, and I am keen to work with members to ensure agreement on what they specify.

On the other part of the question, we have talked about the parliamentary scrutiny of qualifications Scotland, and we will, additionally, talk about that in greater detail in later groups.

I am listening to Mr Kerr develop his point. He talks about greater clarity, but the SCQF provides that clarity at a national level, encompassing all qualifications. He is seeking to duplicate—I think that that is the point that Mr Adam was making—by having another framework embedded, as I understand it, within qualifications Scotland, and that would create more confusion. Does Mr Kerr agree that more challenge in how qualifications are interpreted will be created by duplicating something that already exists?

Will the member take an intervention?

They are defined as protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010, but the advice that I have is that, because the age difference is not prescribed, that will not apply in the way that I think that the member intends. I recognise that more reassurance is needed there, so perhaps we can work together to arrive at a resolution.

I also reassure members that qualifications Scotland will be a named organisation that will be subject to the public sector equality duty, which will require the organisation to have due regard to those types of equality considerations when carrying out its functions. Those considerations should be captured by that duty—to answer Ms Duncan-Glancy’s point.

I fully support prescribing British Sign Language users and those with additional support needs as groups who should be consulted. I therefore ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to press her amendment, with a view to working with Government on whether more is needed or can be done to strengthen existing equality-focused provisions and duties for stage 3.

Amendments 257 and 269 from Ms Clark require the charters to include a list of support that qualifications Scotland will offer to children, young people and adult learners. From Ms Clark’s contribution, I understand that she is not going to move her amendments. We discussed some of the issues last week. As they are drafted, the amendments go against the purpose of the charters in two ways. First, the charters are not there to define a list of services that qualifications Scotland must provide; it is more about how it provides services. The second issue relates to co-production, which will ensure that the charters reflect the needs of those who they are designed to serve. By defining the content to be covered in legislation, we risk pre-empting the co-production process. Ms Clark has, however, raised some important points. I recognise that she is not going to move her amendments but I just wanted to put all that on the record.

Amendment 258 from Mr Whitfield sets out an interesting proposal for an independent person to prepare a draft of the learner charter. I have some concerns about whether such a move is necessary, particularly given the additional provisions for consultation, transparency and accountability within the bill, as well as the changes on co-production that I have committed to. Also, if the person requires to have the relevant skills, knowledge and expertise in relation to the functions of qualifications Scotland, that risks us having a pretty limited pool of candidates compared with the expertise that will be held by qualifications Scotland.

To answer Mr Greer’s point, the intention was always for co-production, and the bill will make that clear following the work that I will undertake with Mr Greer and Ms Duncan-Glancy. I will not therefore be able to support amendment 258.