Chamber and committees

I thank members for explaining the purpose of their amendments. Ms Duncan-Glancy and Mr Greer have made similar proposals under amendments 255, 268, 68 and 70, on ensuring that both the charters are prepared and published in collaboration with people taking qualifications and people delivering qualifications.

To give Mr Greer absolute assurance, it has always been the intention that the charters will be co-produced. I want to provide reassurance that the ministerial guidance on the creation of charters that will be issued to qualifications Scotland will ensure that that principle is embedded.

The Government is also working closely with the SQA and the learner and teacher stakeholders to ensure that its guidance, which is being developed in parallel to the bill, takes account of any legislative changes that are made as the bill makes its way through Parliament. The guidance will be issued to the board of qualifications Scotland, prior to the body becoming fully operational, in order to support plans to co-produce the charters. However, I recognise the additional reassurance that a change to the bill could bring.

My concern with how the amendments are presently drafted is that they would require children, young people, adult learners and teachers to co-produce the charters without limiting that to those who want to be part of a co-production process. In order for me to support the principle behind the amendments and avoid any untended consequences, I would like to work with Ms Duncan-Glancy and Mr Greer on an alternative form of words for stage 3, and I ask them not to press or to move those amendments on that basis.

Moving to amendment 256, I fully agree with the need to ensure that children, young people and adult learners are recognised as the different groups that take qualifications. Although they are already captured by the existing provision, I would be content to support the amendment.

Amendments 262 and 263 bring about additional assurances through ensuring that children, young people, adult learners and parents will be consulted in creating the learner charter. However, that intention is met by my amendment 69. I encourage members to support that instead, although I have listened to the discussion this morning.

Amendment 69 would guarantee consultation of the same groups that are covered by amendments 262 and 263, while also, importantly, covering carers as parents, in line with our commitment to the Promise. Although I have listened to the debate, I am content not to move amendment 69 in order to ensure that we can arrive at a position that we can all support, as long as amendments 262 and 263 are also not moved.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 264 also seeks to strengthen the requirements for the creation of the learner charter by including learners who are users of British Sign Language, those who have protected characteristics listed in section 4 of the Equality Act 2010 and those with additional support needs. The Government fully supports the intention behind the amendment, and the charter is intended to take full account of the diversity and varying needs and interests of Scotland’s children, young people and adult learners. However, as drafted, I have concerns that the intention of the amendment would not be met. The rationale is to ensure that those from marginalised communities would be consulted. Unfortunately, including protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 does not guarantee that, as protected characteristics include things that we all have, such as age.

As drafted, the amendment does nothing to ensure that, for example, people with a range of different ages are consulted or that people of different races are consulted.

The point that I was making in talking about Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment is that the responsibility is not only for qualifications Scotland. Scotland’s education system is broad and, as we heard from Mr Kerr, there is a variety of actors in it. I am not necessarily sure that there is an overarching responsibility that fits the purpose that Ms Duncan-Glancy is driving at.

We must be mindful that we will talk today about a lot of amendments that do not necessarily fall within the scope of what was originally quite a focused bill to create a new qualifications body. Quite rightly, as the member has done today, members have raised other issues that are relevant and pertinent to educational delivery in Scotland.

More broadly, this might be part of the work that we could look at in a conversation about accreditation and about some of the actors in Scotland’s broader educational landscape. To my mind, as I have said, it is not for qualifications Scotland to undertake that work alone, although the SQA is already undertaking its own rationalisation process, which is well under way. I would be happy to write to the committee to give a further update on how that work is progressing.

Will the member take an intervention?

Yes, I will.

I thank Ms Duncan-Glancy for setting out the purpose of her amendments. The amendments seek to impose duties on the strategic advisory council for qualifications Scotland and on the chief inspector to provide advice on matters relating to tracking learners through the system and a data-sharing system between schools, colleges and universities.

I do not believe that the strategic advisory council would be best placed to advise on such matters. Those issues would not be within the responsibility of either organisation, nor would it be within their gift to implement changes as a result of such advice. Any such responsibility would require the consideration of stakeholders across the whole education and skills sector, including higher and further education institutions, whose autonomy also needs to be recognised, particularly if we were to seek to compel them to share data for Scottish Government purposes.

I have heard that allegation over the past two years, but I invite the member, and colleagues around the table, to observe the number of amendments to the bill that have been lodged; it is quite clear that it is not going to be just about a name change. The bill is about fundamentally changing the culture of our qualifications body, and I think that all the amendments that we have agreed today will help to strengthen it in that regard.

Good.

I very much agree with the latter point. We have heard from a number of members about the challenges that are associated with how that body was established, which I am not necessarily sure could be resolved through this bill, because it is focused on the role of qualifications Scotland. More broadly, the role of the SCQF Partnership, which has been raised by other members, is something on which I would be happy to engage with members.

Stephen Kerr talks about the cluttered landscape of educational bodies in Scotland. I have listened to his arguments, but I am not clear how that would be resolved by creating a new bespoke framework for qualifications Scotland’s delivery. If anything, that would add to the clutter in the landscape, so I am not sure that I agree with him on that point, but I agree with him on his overarching point in relation to the role of the SCQF Partnership.

I thank Ms Duncan-Glancy and Mr Kerr for explaining the purpose of their amendments. We can all agree on the importance of the SCQF as a national framework for qualifications, and I support the general principles of Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments in particular.

Qualifications Scotland will be expected to work closely with the SCQF Partnership in relation to the framework, as the SQA does now. Although their organisational functions and focus differ, they share the common goal of ensuring high-quality qualifications for learners across Scotland. It is right, then, that qualifications Scotland considers the advice of the SCQF Partnership on the status of the framework when delivering its functions, and vice versa.

Therefore, I offer my support in principle to amendment 238, which seeks to ensure in legislation that regard is given to the framework. Some technical changes will be needed if the provision is to be future proofed, as the framework is not, as we have heard, something that has been established by legislation. As such, it could change in future, and the legislation would then no longer work in the way in which we all intend it to. We would need to take a power to amend the reference or refer to such frameworks as ministers may specify in regulations. I am happy to work with the member to refine things for stage 3, and I therefore ask her not to move the amendment today.

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.