Chamber and committees

I recognise the point that the member makes, but I think that delivering a majority might deliver an unfair balance of voices. The advisory council is meant to be advisory and not tilted to one perspective, if that makes sense, so there is a concern that it would be, in some way, one-sided in relation to giving advice and challenge to the chief inspector.

I thank Ms Duncan-Glancy for her explanation of her amendments that relate to making the role of the advisory council that of a governing council, but I am not able to support that change. The intention behind the advisory council is to advise and to inform the chief inspector in the exercise of their duties—not to act as a governing body. I heard Ms Duncan-Glancy’s points about semantics, but changing the name would suggest that the advisory council was something that it is not intended to be. That name change could be misleading and could cause confusion, particularly as no actual governance functions are being proposed.

I ask members not to support the amendments in this group. I ask Mr Greer and Mr Briggs to work with me on a workable provision in advance of stage 3. In doing so, I am happy to assure Mr Greer that, although we must be mindful of the need to avoid undue prescription and inflexibility in legislation—to ensure that the council will remain relevant to the chief inspector’s work in the long term—I accept, in principle, that the provision will involve a greater degree of specificity than is currently set out in the bill. That will include looking at how we can best give the guarantee of staff involvement that he is looking for in amendment 78.

I thank members for the amendments in this group.

Under the bill as introduced, the core purpose of the advisory council is to provide the chief inspector with advice, support and challenge, rather than to play a formal governing role. I also recognise the benefits of having a range of independent voices on the advisory council. The provisions in the bill require the chief inspector to establish and maintain an advisory council and to take independent decisions on its membership. The chief inspector must endeavour to ensure that the council is representative of those who are likely to be affected by inspection, and the provisions are intended to set a fair and flexible framework for the independent chief inspector to work with. The provisions provide the right balance: there are core requirements but they also allow for flexibility in how the chief inspector operates.

However, I agree that there are a variety of ways of achieving that, and I am open to discussing Mr Greer’s amendments 77 and 78 ahead of stage 3 to ensure that they are workable. For example, we would need to ensure that there was no conflict with regard to who appoints people to the council, given that amendment 77 specifies ministers and amendment 78 specifies the chief inspector. In addition, I am concerned that the list that is set out in amendment 78 is too prescriptive and that it could exclude some groups that are affected by the chief inspector’s work. I note that the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland has expressed similar reservations. A further concern is that any provision relating to members of the council who are to be of a particular age group will have to comply with the law.

However, I believe that Mr Greer and I will be able to work together to develop a proposal that provides a level of reassurance on those specifics while still allowing flexibility for future proofing.

I give Mr Greer reassurance that I am supportive of that in principle. I will come to address that point later, actually.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 326 stipulates that council membership must consist of a majority of persons who are registered teachers or college teaching staff. I cannot support that amendment, which I ask members to accept is too prescriptive and would exclude other important voices from the council.

I fully support the involvement of parents and carers in the advisory council, which Miles Briggs’s amendment 172 seeks to achieve. I have some reservations that prescribing that in legislation is not necessarily the best way to achieve a balanced and fully representative council, but it would be possible to do something on that in conjunction with the changes that Mr Greer is looking to make.

The protected characteristics are age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation. As those are areas on which people can face discrimination in matters such as their employment, it is right that they be protected. However, when we look at those areas, we see that not all of them will translate into having to meet particular communication needs, which I think is the purpose of Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment in relation to the format of things such as annual reports. The public sector duty and the 2010 act would be preferable as a catch-all in that regard. We are not of the view that the protected characteristics approach in amendment 286, as drafted, will capture the essence of what she is driving at.

I want to come on to the impact of the 2010 act. The way in which the protected characteristics amendment would interact with the legislation would be quite challenging; indeed, I have given the example of people who are married or have a civil partner, and how you communicate with those groups. It is quite difficult to provide that sort of differentiation. The 2010 act will, of course, apply to qualifications Scotland, including the general and specific public sector equality duties. On that basis, I am not able to support amendment 286.

Mr Greer’s amendments 17, 22 and 23 call for consideration of users of the Scots language by qualifications Scotland and the chief inspector when publishing documents. The amendments align with the objectives of the Scottish Languages Bill, and I am happy to support them.

I move amendment 72.

Amendments 72, 94 and 108, which I have lodged, will together ensure that qualifications Scotland and the chief inspector, when publishing documents, give consideration to users of British Sign Language. Amendment 108 sets out the definitions to be used when referring to BSL users and BSL education, and they were written in close consultation with the National Deaf Children’s Society. I encourage members to support the amendments.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 286 would add two groups to the persons that qualifications Scotland must give consideration to when publishing documents. The first group—users of BSL—is covered by my amendment 72, which I have just discussed; it is accompanied by amendment 108, which clarifies the meaning of BSL with reference to its definition in the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015 to include both the visual and tactile forms of BSL. As my amendment includes essential definitions, I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move her amendment and to support my amendments instead.

The second element that would be added by Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 286 is a requirement for consideration to be given to the needs of “persons with protected characteristics” under the Equality Act 2010. That does not quite make sense in this context. Protected characteristics include, for example, being married or in a civil partnership, and it is not clear to me how documents would or could be communicated in a way that best meets the needs of those with a spouse or civil partner. The protected characteristics that I think are most relevant are disability and age and, on that, the bill already makes specific reference to communicating in a way that meets the needs of people with additional support needs and the needs of children and young people.

I am not of the view that this bill is the place for that. A number of risks are associated with doing it by amendment. I have also spoken to some of the issues around determining what advice looks like.

More broadly, Mr Adam spoke to Mr Dey’s work. Mr Dey’s officials in the lifelong learning and skills department are leading on that work, and I am mindful of that and of the complexities in that regard.

I spoke to the committee recently about some of the data-sharing arrangements in relation to free school meals. There is an opportunity for us to learn from that experience, but we need to be mindful that, for example, our universities are independent, autonomous institutions, so a simple lift of the approach that we adopted to share Scottish child payment data for the purposes of providing free school meals is not necessarily applicable in a higher education space.

However—

Yes.

I am happy to have those discussions. I take Ms Duncan-Glancy’s points in relation to her proposals and the role of accreditation, which is a live topic that we will come back to. I am happy to have those discussions with members and to give Mr Briggs that reassurance.

Amendment 290, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 291 to 296 not moved.