Chamber and committees

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.

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.