On that point, I note that parliamentary recesses are not counted in the stipulated 40 days.

In my comments to Ms Duncan-Glancy, I have talked about some of the substantive changes that have happened at the SQA in recent months. I hope that the member will at least recognise that. I am not convinced of the need for all members of the current board to reapply six months after the organisation comes into being. That would create a real challenge for the stability of the organisation. It is stepping up and responding to the challenges that we all know exist in relation to our qualifications system. It has to get on with the job, and it has to be ready to do that. I am just not convinced of the proposal in amendment 351, and I am not sure that Ms Duncan-Glancy will convince me that a different timescale would help.

The Government has not begun any recruitment to qualifications Scotland, because that organisation does not exist yet. We have recruited to the SQA. I just wanted to put that on the record.

I take the point that Sue Webber has made and the aspiration that she sets out, but my concern is that, as currently drafted, the amendment might limit the chief inspector’s functions. I am happy to have further discussions with Ms Webber ahead of stage 3, if that would be helpful.

I see merit in Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 321, 323 and 358, but my view is that the bill already contains provisions that will ensure that the chief inspector takes account of views and priorities that are vital to the education system—for example, through the views of the advisory council. I have specific concerns about the part of amendment 321 that would require the chief inspector to have regard to the views of the Scottish Parliament’s education committee. We discussed that issue extensively in the debate on group 11, when the views that Mr Mason and Mr Whitfield shared led to Mr Greer not moving amendment 60. Although it is reasonable to assume that the chief inspector would already have regard to the committee’s views, I believe that setting out a direct requirement in legislation would set an unhelpful precedent. We have all been concerned to ensure that the chief inspector is suitably independent—quite rightly so—and I believe that such a move risks undermining that independence.

I thank Ms Duncan-Glancy for explaining the purpose of her amendment, but, for the reasons that I will set out, I cannot support it. I understand that the amendment stems from concerns that the leadership that has presided over the SQA would transfer to qualifications Scotland. I assure the member and other members that I remain committed to ensuring that we have the right leadership for qualifications Scotland.

That process has already started with the appointment of Shirley Rogers as the chair of the SQA. She has provided invaluable leadership and has ensured that the SQA is delivering its functions and embracing reform. I hope that members will agree that it is critical that we have continuity of leadership.

Building on that, we have also approved leadership changes in the form of the appointment, in autumn 2024, of five new board members to the SQA board. I made those appointments to bring additional teaching and college experience to the board, alongside other skills that are invaluable in supporting the transition. Those members were recruited on the basis that they, too, would become members of qualifications Scotland.

Amidst such progress to refresh the leadership, Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment would risk bringing many practical challenges by requiring that board members who transfer to the new board would have their appointments terminated and would need to reapply. We would run the risk that some members might choose not to reapply, which would risk qualifications Scotland losing valuable skills and experience at a time when it needs them most. We also know that appointment rounds do not always yield the results that we hope for.

I am mindful, too, of the need, as we discussed previously, to ensure that the board is compliant with the minimum membership numbers and the criteria that the bill will establish, and of the need to ensure that it can function within the law.

I very much recognise that there are calls for further legislation in this area. However, although the amendments are obviously very well intentioned, I am not able to support them. We accept, of course, that there needs to be a robust system in place to monitor restraint where there is education provision in secure centres, but the amendments do not recognise the unique set-up of those centres or, in particular, the difficulties in distinguishing between care and education providers.

Notably, the Care Inspectorate has a vital role in undertaking the inspection of secure accommodation. I have, therefore, lodged my own amendment 88, which was debated in a previous group, to require the chief inspector to have regard to

“the need for relevant educational establishments to have adequate arrangements in place to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and young people”.

That flexible provision is intended to cover the use of restraint.

I thank Mr Greer and Ms Duncan-Glancy for explaining the purposes of these amendments.

Mr Greer’s amendments 36 and 37 together call for the annual report of qualifications Scotland to include a summary of advice offered by its committees and any response given by qualifications Scotland. I support the principles behind them and their ability to ensure greater transparency; however, I would like to work with Mr Greer to refine them, because I think that the proposal might sit better as a separate requirement in the bill rather than something attached to the annual report. Such an approach will ensure the possibility of more routine publications of that type, instead of its simply being embedded in one annual corporate governance document. If Mr Greer would like to work with me on that, I would ask him not to press or move his amendments, and we can adjust that for stage 3.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 283 and 284 make an addition to the reporting requirements to include any advice provided by the strategic advisory council and the response provided by qualifications Scotland. I support that objective; indeed, it is our intention to include a provision to that effect in the regulations that establish the council.

However, for reasons similar to those that I outlined in relation to Mr Greer’s amendments, I do not think that the best place to publish that advice and qualifications Scotland’s response is in the annual report. I would be keen to consider that as a separate requirement, and my preference would be to set out that type of provision in the regulations that establish the council, as already enabled under section 9 of the bill.

That said, I understand the desire to prescribe this in the bill and, if Ms Duncan-Glancy is not assured that we will deal with that in the regulations, I would like to work with her on the amendment for stage 3.

I thank Mr Briggs for explaining the purpose of his amendment. I agree with the sentiment that we should ensure that qualifications Scotland will provide guidance on arrangements that can be made to assist those with additional support needs when they are being assessed for qualifications. However, I am not clear about the member’s intention in relation to the requirement that anyone who has been given additional time for exams

“must be supervised by the head teacher”,

which is the point that Mr Greer made.

As drafted, amendment 131 is very restrictive and would likely prove unworkable in practice. For example, it does not take account of circumstances in which the headteacher is absent and does not specify who would be a suitable replacement. It also does not allow another headteacher to step in, as it specifies that it must be

“the head teacher of the educational establishment in which the examination is being undertaken.”

Therefore, we can foresee risks around scheduling and bottlenecks, the creation of which would be unfair on school administrators, teachers and, most importantly, pupils with additional support needs.

However, I recognise Miles Briggs’s desire for more assurance to be provided in this area, so I would be happy to work with him on the matter ahead of stage 3. On that basis, I ask Mr Briggs not to press amendment 131.

Good morning, members.

I thank Mr Greer and Ms Duncan-Glancy for setting out the purposes of their amendments. Mr Greer’s amendment 3 calls for an emphasis on learners, teachers and practitioners when considering the delivery of the functions of qualifications Scotland. I think that it is clear that his aim is one on which we can all agree. To that end, I fully support the emphasis on pupils and other students undertaking qualifications and on the teachers and practitioners who are delivering them.

My slight concern relates to the restrictive way in which the amendment might operate in practice, and the points that I made during our discussion on group 1 are relevant here, too. Therefore, I am grateful that Mr Greer did not press his amendment 2 in group 1 and that he will not be pressing amendment 3 so that we can work together on something for stage 3.

On Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 230, which, as I understand it, would require qualifications Scotland to quality assure its qualifications, that function has been an inherent part of the SQA’s operations and will continue to be a crucial component of how qualifications Scotland delivers high-quality qualifications. Earlier this year, I shared with the committee a paper setting out how school qualifications devised by the SQA are reviewed and quality assured. It would be helpful to revisit some of that in detail, alongside having discussions on the location and scope of accreditation functions, which we agreed last week.

The process of assuring national qualifications will continue in qualifications Scotland, and the premise of reviewing and quality assuring qualifications—particularly where issues arise, as Ms Duncan-Glancy has just highlighted—will not be a new feature of the qualifications body. As we know, issues will always appear in year, given—to put it bluntly—the size of the qualifications portfolio, but I am happy to support the amendment to provide reassurance that the process will continue to happen.

This discussion on amendment 230 also provides an opportune moment for me to update members on the work that the SQA has done, ahead of the transition to qualifications Scotland, to improve how qualifications are delivered in schools and to enhance its leadership structures. I believe that that is the work on which the convener asked for an update last week.

Members might recall that I commissioned the chair of the SQA to consider all that; a response was submitted to me at the end of last year, and it included proposals for a dedicated schools unit and initial considerations on leadership design for accreditation. I responded to the submission in February, giving support for the direction of travel and for more detailed proposals to be developed. Since that time, the SQA has revised its leadership structures to separate the chief executive and chief examiner roles—as we discussed last week—and to put in place an interim chief regulator for accreditation to enhance the separation of those functions. Again, we discussed that last week in relation to group 4.

The SQA, with funding from the Scottish Government, has also recently appointed a seconded headteacher into the organisation to act as a senior advisor on qualifications and to lead a new dedicated schools unit. That work will be hugely important in changing the way in which the organisation works with our schools. The individual in that senior role will report to the chief examiner and support the organisation to ensure that it is able to rebuild trust and confidence with our teachers. They will take up their role in the summer and will then transition to qualifications Scotland.

I will keep members updated on that work, noting the relevance of those discussions to a number of amendments that the committee has been considering. I hope that that is a helpful update in the context of these amendments.

That is, indeed, the case, Mr Mason.

I am conscious of the time, convener.

In its stage 1 report, the committee asked the Government to

“strengthen the measures within the Bill”

that relate to the inspectorate’s accountability, including to the Parliament. I listened to Mr Rennie’s point. I also support, subject to the use of a slightly shorter timeframe, Mr Greer’s amendment 92 in the “Inspection plans” group, which would require the chief inspector to lay a draft inspection plan before the Parliament. That amendment would give the Parliament an opportunity to review and comment on the operations of the chief inspector directly to the chief inspector.

Mr Rennie’s amendment 160 aims to add recognition of the important role of Parliament in relation to the ability of ministers to make regulations to specify intervals at which educational establishments are to be inspected. I emphasise that any such regulations will already be subject to the affirmative procedure, which means that they will not become law unless they are approved by the Parliament.

Ms Webber’s amendment 180 seeks a role for this committee in reviewing regulations that would set the frequency for reviews of an inspection plan. Those regulations will already be subject to the affirmative procedure, and I submit that that therefore already fully involves the committee.

To return to Mr Rennie’s amendment 160—apologies, convener—it appears that it is intended to create a special class of regulations that would be subject to an excessive period of parliamentary procedure that is significantly longer than the period that is used in the super-affirmative procedure for other regulations. Although the content of any regulations made under the bill will be important, they will not be as complex as some other regulations that are subject to a shorter laying period. For example, even the creation of the register of persons holding a controlled interest in land, which was incredibly detailed, was subject to only a 60-day laying period. Although I am unable to support the amendment in its current form, I would be happy to work with Mr Rennie on a revised amendment that fulfils his intent in a more manageable way.

More broadly, Mr Rennie has lodged a range of amendments that would remove powers from ministers in relation to inspection staff and would invest those instead in the chief inspector. Generally speaking, the amendments would give a great deal of largely unchecked power to an individual office-holder without any obvious restrictions or safeguards. That would be concerning and likely to bring unintended consequences that are yet to be fully understood.

For example, the chief inspector alone would be empowered to determine the number of inspections that would be employed, without any apparent limit. The amendments could also introduce an element of inconsistency into staff terms, which could vary depending purely on who the chief inspector is at the time of appointment. Once again, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for such staff to continue to be civil servants, as was recommended by Professor Muir. For those reasons, I urge members not to support Mr Rennie’s amendments in that area.

Amendment 182, lodged by Ms Webber, appears to be intended to require that every individual inspection report be laid before Parliament—something that have we heard about from other members. However, as Mr Greer pointed out, it is difficult to envisage that the Parliament would have the capacity to do much with the individual reports on every establishment that is inspected, which are expected to number around 250 a year. I contend that it would be better for the Parliament to focus on the annual report of the overall performance of the Scottish education system, which is already allowed for in the bill. I also emphasise that every inspection report will be published—as they are today—so that they will be available to the public and MSPs from publication. I therefore urge members not to support amendment 182.

I have more sympathy with Ms Webber’s amendment 186, which would replace the chief inspector’s power to lay any other report before the Parliament about any matter relating to their function with a duty for them to do so. Although that arguably removes an area of discretion for the chief inspector, I am happy to support that in further recognition of the importance of keeping the Parliament informed of the chief inspector’s judgment.

Ms Duncan-Glancy has also lodged amendments to ensure that certain reports that the chief inspector produces are simultaneously sent to the Parliament and Scottish ministers. I sympathise with the intention behind those amendments. Therefore, I support amendments 342 and 345, which relate to reports that must be laid before Parliament as is set out in the bill.

However, I am concerned that applying the same restriction to reports that “may” be laid before the Parliament would have the unintended consequence of reducing the number of reports that are laid, because it would essentially prevent reports from being laid if they had not been laid in the narrow window of time that the amendments set out. Therefore, I urge members not to support amendments 340 and 349. I would be happy to further discuss the issue with Ms Duncan-Glancy if she has any concerns about it.