Chamber and committees

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.

Ms Duncan-Glancy has raised a really important point. Obviously, convener, your own group of amendments—that is, group 21—speaks to the same issue.

We need to be mindful of legislating on the back of that one very challenging incident with higher history and the potential unintended consequences that might rest alongside that, because lots of individual factors were at play in the investigation that took place. I absolutely accept the concerns expressed by higher history teachers; indeed, I have been before the committee to talk about some of those concerns, and the committee has quite rightly taken a keen interest in the matter.

My issue with the drafting of Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments is that they give Scottish ministers the powers to make regulations. I am not sure that that is the appropriate way of addressing those concerns; we need to be mindful of Scottish ministers’ power in that space, and of the wording with regard to raising concerns.

I am keen to address the issue that the member has raised, which I think is a serious one, but I think that we should do so via Mr Ross’s amendments in group 21. I therefore ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to press or move these amendments, with a view to discussing the issue as part of group 21, if she is content to do so. I am also mindful of our wider discussion around accreditation, which links directly to the points that the member has raised today.

I broadly agree with the sentiment behind Mr Adam’s question.

It is important that ministers hold the power to take that enforcement action, where necessary and proportionate, on the basis of information from inspection. In my view, the inspectorate of education is not and should not be about regulation. Taking on such an enforcement role, which it does not currently have, would fundamentally change its character. I therefore cannot agree with Sue Webber’s amendment 155, even if that is accompanied by amendment 307 from Stephen Kerr—who, I appreciate, is not here—as it would leave ministers without the ability, under any circumstances, to require the chief inspector to secure the inspection of a particular establishment, including in cases in which significant concerns had been raised.

Similarly, I urge members to reject Mr Rennie’s amendment 156, which would require ministers to seek the views of the committee before requesting an inspection. Given the circumstances in which powers are likely to be used, such as where there might be urgent concerns—the point that Mr Greer raised—it would not be appropriate to take time for that step if we had to move at pace.

I also urge members to reject Ms Webber’s amendments 189 to 205, which would remove the role of ministers in relation to enforcement directions.

Additionally, as has been alluded to, Ms Webber’s amendment 155 would remove the requirement for the chief inspector to comply with a request from ministers to inspect an educational establishment. It would also remove the power of the chief inspector to secure the inspection of an excepted establishment on the request of ministers.

Amendment 161 would remove the excepted establishment definition in section 31(4) of the bill. That would be problematic because, taken together, those amendments would bring post-16 further education colleges and the higher education institutions that deliver accredited initial teacher education within the scope of the chief inspector’s duty to secure inspection of educational establishments at such intervals and to such an extent as the chief inspector considered necessary. Under the current provisions, excepted establishments would be inspected only on the request of ministers.

I agree that there is a need for robust quality assurance mechanisms to be in place for post-16 further education for ITE. However, two separate oversight and regulatory mechanisms already exist. The Scottish Funding Council, which I know has written to the committee, already has a statutory duty to ensure that provision is made for assessing and enhancing the quality of university provision, including ITE and post-16 further education.

In relation to ITE specifically, a second layer of regulation is led by the General Teaching Council for Scotland, which is the relevant professional body—I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests in that regard. Amendment 161 would create a third layer, adding further duplication, additional bureaucratic requirements and extra costs for higher education institutions, with no discernible benefit.

More broadly, members’ amendments in the group have competing conceptions about whether power over a range of matters should be vested in the chief inspector alone or whether it should be vested in the Scottish Parliament’s corporate body and in the committee.

On the latter, a range of amendments lodged by Ms Webber seek to place powers with the SPCB as opposed to with ministers. I am mindful of the fact that the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which includes Mr Mason and Mr Greer, reported in September 2024 on the number of bodies that are supported by the SPCB and recommended a moratorium on the creation of any more. The Parliament voted to accept that recommendation, and the convener and Ms Webber were among those who supported it.

More than that, the committee also noted that SPCB-supported body status was not necessary to demonstrate independence from Government, with policing and prisons inspectorates being cited as good examples of Government-led bodies that act independently and produce robust recommendations. Given that the model for HM chief inspector of education, which is set out in the bill as introduced, broadly follows that same approach, it is not clear why the education inspectorate cannot be equally successful.

In addition, the model as proposed in the bill would allow us to meet one of Professor Muir’s key recommendations—that HM inspectors of education continue to be civil servants. That would not be feasible if they were to become employees of the chief inspector, with all the implications of that for the transfer of staff.

Also, in its stage 1 report, the committee noted that some members did not consider it necessary for the chief inspector to be accountable to the Scottish Parliament.

Mr Whitfield’s earlier point about flexibility is really salient. The member will be aware that what is currently the SQA—what will be qualifications Scotland—is looking across the piece at the wide variety of qualifications that are being delivered in our schools. Those have changed substantially since the member and I were in school, and we need to be mindful of that flexibility and allow the organisation the opportunity to move and respond accordingly. Therefore, I agree with the sentiment behind the member’s point.

I cannot support amendments 229 and 231, which seek to place in legislation operational arrangements between the two organisations. Amendment 229 seeks to ensure coherence in naming conventions, but I believe that that will be best resolved through the working that we already have and through the collaborative relationship between qualifications Scotland and the SCQF Partnership. Notwithstanding that, I think that support for the principle of amendment 238 delivers that. I will speak to that in a moment.

Before I do so, though, I want to set out why I cannot support amendment 231. As drafted, it seeks to place the requirement to enter into a shared confidence arrangement in the context of qualifications Scotland’s own quality assurance functions. Those functions are for qualifications Scotland to satisfy itself that the arrangements that educational establishments have in place for delivering qualifications and related assessments are appropriate. Those quality assurance functions protect the integrity of qualifications and ensure that all those taking qualifications do so in a way that is fair and equitable. The SCQF Partnership has independent oversight of the credit rating functions of the credit rating bodies such as the SQA.

In its letter to the committee, the SCQF Partnership clearly set out its role in the system and the relationship that it has with the SQA. It is clear from that that the SCQF Partnership has no role in the operational quality assurance processes for qualifications that qualifications Scotland and other awarding bodies will put in place to support delivery. It is therefore hard for me to see why the SCQF Partnership must enter into an agreement with qualifications Scotland on those particular matters.

Although there may be some concerns about how the SCQF Partnership and the SQA work together, I understand that the chief executive of the SCQF Partnership and the interim chief executive of the SQA are working closely to strengthen that approach.

I hope that my intention to work with Ms Duncan-Glancy on amendment 238, alongside the assurances that I have provided on reviewed arrangements between the two organisations, provides the reassurance needed. I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to press amendment 229 and not to move amendment 231 and her connected amendment 354.

Mr Kerr’s amendment 289 seeks to create a separate framework for qualifications that is managed by the SCQF Partnership. That suggestion contradicts the purpose of the existing national framework, which is a single national qualifications framework for Scotland. Therefore, to have a framework that is exclusively for qualifications Scotland would arguably undermine the principle of a cohesive and simple framework for the whole country. For those reasons, I do not support the amendment, and I encourage others to do the same.

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy and Ross Greer for explaining the purposes of their amendments. In general, many of those amendments align with the fundamental principles and values under which qualifications Scotland should operate.

A number of amendments would require qualifications Scotland to “have regard to” the advice and recommendations that may be given to it by Education Scotland, the Scottish Funding Council and Skills Development Scotland. Like the SQA, qualifications Scotland will have an inherent requirement to work effectively with those organisations to deliver in the interests of Scotland’s children and young people and adult learners. Although I do not necessarily believe that that needs to be prescribed in legislation, I recognise the level of reassurance that it would provide to the system to make it clear that the organisations that work in the same space will collaborate as appropriate.

A few points of drafting in relation to amendments 236 and 237 will need to be refined—including how we describe Education Scotland and SDS, to ensure that that works in legislation. I highlighted that point in the discussion on group 9.

I am also not quite sure that the language of “recommendations” is right when it comes to expressing the nature of that collaborative relationship. I am keen to work with Stephen Kerr and Pam Duncan-Glancy on those amendments ahead of stage 3, and I ask that they do not move them today. I also ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move amendment 239 but, instead, to work with us on amendment 236—if Mr Kerr is content with that, of course.

Amendments 55 and 56 place duties on qualifications Scotland to have regard to the needs of those who use British Sign Language in the context of learning, BSL-medium education, and those who teach with British Sign Language. I echo Ross Greer’s points in congratulating the BSL community—in particular, children and young people—for all its campaigning in that space.

Members will note that my amendment 54 adds an express reference to children and young people as a distinct user group whose needs and interests need to be taken account of by qualifications Scotland. The amendment recognises that, often, children and young people have different requirements from others who may use the services of qualifications Scotland.

Ross Greer has lodged amendment 4, which seeks to change the wording in the bill to require qualifications Scotland to “prioritise” rather than “have regard to” the needs and interests of those who use its services. Although I understand the intention behind that amendment, I am concerned about the expectations that we would set through the use of the word “prioritise”. Qualifications Scotland will of course need to have regard to its service users as a high priority.

I reassure Mr Greer that, as I said in the evidence session last week, I agree that it is important that qualifications Scotland prioritises services for children, young people and adult learners. However, as a public body that operates in an education and skills ecosystem, it also needs to have as a priority, when essential, other public bodies duties that might, from time to time, conflict with the priorities of service users. Learners will also have conflicting ideas about what they would prioritise, so it will be challenging to prioritise all of them. For example, candidates undertaking qualifications might want certain topics or assessment methods to be prioritised, and that might differ from the needs of employers or the higher and further education sector.

It is essential that qualifications Scotland, with the support of its new governance arrangements, is able to make such judgment calls. By including the word “prioritise”, we are potentially setting the organisation up for challenge when certain priorities of different groups have not been met, despite there being reasonable and valid reasons for that.

To that end, I emphasise that the term “have regard to” is not without impact. It requires qualifications Scotland to fully consider the needs and interests of everyone who use its services and ensure that they have been factored into its decisions and the delivery of its functions. Given those assurances, I ask Mr Greer not to move amendment 4.

I thank Miles Briggs and Pam Duncan-Glancy for explaining the thinking behind the amendments and I thank committee members for their thoughtful contributions. Overall, I am pleased that we collectively agree that Scotland needs a national body with a clear focus on the curriculum to drive improvement and support implementation, although I argue that we already have that. That is why I announced to the Parliament last June, via a Government-initiated question, that the work of Education Scotland would be refocused, ensuring that its primary focus is on leading curriculum review and improvement. As members will know, the curriculum improvement cycle in now well under way, and Education Scotland is successfully leading that work through engagement with teachers and young people.

In considering the amendments, the principle of legislating only when necessary has been at the forefront of my mind, as has the intended purpose of the bill, which is to establish qualifications Scotland and the office of HM chief inspector of education. I ask members to keep those points in their minds as we consider the group.

I turn first to amendment 290. Although I understand Mr Kerr’s rationale for setting out Education Scotland’s functions in legislation, I believe that the same result can be achieved without the need for legislation. In fact, the cluttered landscape that Mr Briggs spoke to will not be aided by creating a new national body.

I recognise members’ concerns that the role of Education Scotland, and its relationship to other national bodies and the sector more broadly, needs to be clearer. I agree with that sentiment whole-heartedly. It needs to be clear to local authorities, teachers and practitioners what services Education Scotland offers, and when and how to access them. There must also be confidence in the quality of those services.

Following—I hope, following the successful passage of this bill—the separation of the inspectorate, we will need to continue to work with Education Scotland to define its role in and relationship with the system and to clearly communicate that role to teachers, practitioners and children and young people. More broadly, however, teachers who have been working in Scotland for a number of years will be particularly au fait with Learning and Teaching Scotland, as it was, which existed previously. That support mechanism to the curriculum is currently well understood by many teachers across the country.

As I mentioned, Education Scotland has a key role in relation to curriculum review and improvement, which includes the curriculum improvement cycle and supporting local authorities. However, it also works on inclusion, behaviour, additional support needs and closing the attainment gap. It is important that we make best use of Education Scotland’s professional expertise across priorities other than curriculum, some of which I just mentioned.

Another area that I am sure that Mr Briggs and Mr Kerr—although he is not here now—will be familiar with is developing leadership skills. Mr Kerr has been pretty consistent in making that point last week and earlier today. Education Scotland will build on its success in that area, creating leadership capacity across the system. With those points in mind, I am concerned that the amendment as drafted would narrow Education Scotland’s focus too much. Building on its primary focus on the curriculum, Education Scotland has much to add across other national priority areas that impact our teachers and young people, and I would not want that to stop or be curtailed unnecessarily.

Mr Kerr’s amendment does not take account of other national bodies and services that have a key role to play in delivering aspects of Scotland’s curriculum. I am particularly mindful, for example, of Skills Development Scotland, which includes our careers service and developing the young workforce.

In addition, Education Scotland is an executive agency of the Scottish ministers. Statutory functions should not be conferred on such agencies, as they do not—as I think that the committee has heard today—have their own separate legal personality from that of the Scottish ministers. In legal terms, there is, strictly speaking, nothing on which that duty would operate.

For those reasons, I cannot support Mr Kerr’s amendment. However, I note the committee’s interest in the role of Education Scotland, and I would be happy to engage with members through the reform process outwith this bill. Education Scotland’s functions and governance arrangements will continue to be published, as they are now, to ensure that there is transparency and clarity for the system.

Ms Duncan-Glancy amendments 293, 294 and 296 would establish, as we have heard, a new body called curriculum Scotland, set out its functions and place requirements on it to prepare and publish an annual report. Although I appreciate the intention behind the amendments—and, again, I welcome the cross-party agreement that Scotland needs a national body that is clearly focused on the curriculum—I cannot support them. Indeed, as I have previously stated, I would argue that that body already exists.

As members are aware, and as we have discussed, Scotland’s public services are currently under significant fiscal pressure. I do not believe that establishing a brand-new curriculum body in addition to Education Scotland meets the principles of public sector reform around driving efficiency and effectiveness. It would also run contrary to the Government’s commitment to creating no new, small, stand-alone public bodies. I hope that committee members share the view that creating brand-new public bodies via amendments to legislation should not be done without first considering the necessary policy, legal, financial and delivery implications.

I have just been advised that it will be set out in the regulations.

I intend to press amendment 67, which is of a different nature. It requires ministers to publish any guidance that is issued to the council regarding how and who it consults with, in order to strengthen transparency.

I turn to the amendments that seek to stipulate and prescribe the membership of the council. Mr Briggs and Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 129, 246, 248 and 253 look to specify a range of groups and organisations that we expect to be on the council. As the policy memorandum sets out, it is envisaged that the council will reflect the breadth of strategic organisational interest in qualifications Scotland’s functions. That means a membership that includes, but is not limited to,

“schools and colleges, universities and further education institutions, employers, training providers, a range of industries, parents and carers”

and their representatives,

“education authorities, other Scottish public bodies”

and

“other qualification providers”.

To address Mr Greer’s comments in the previous meeting on the bill, I want to take this opportunity to clarify the intention of the council. It is envisaged that the council will be for education and skills qualifications and the wider system stakeholders and not solely an academic-focused forum. It is absolutely appropriate that parents and carers’ representatives have a seat at the table.

Although I agree with all those amendments in principle, I cannot support them, because they undermine the need for flexibility and adaptability. It is important that we do not limit the ability for membership of the council to change over time according to its and qualifications Scotland’s needs. It has always been the Scottish Government’s position not to set out membership criteria in primary legislation, which is in effect what the amendments would do. In particular, amendment 248 would stipulate a requirement to include representatives of organisations that are not guaranteed by statute to continue to exist in their present form. For example, if Universities Scotland or Colleges Scotland changes name or ceases to exist, we would be unable to fulfil that legislative membership requirement.

I am keen to work with all members in the room and qualifications Scotland, outwith the bill process, to ensure that the council has a membership model that we can all get behind to maximise the quality of advice that qualifications Scotland will receive. By determining that outwith the bill, we can ensure that the council’s membership can be easily adapted in future, as needed, to meet the system’s needs, the priorities of the Scottish Government and the needs of qualifications Scotland. As I have said, the existing provisions give the opportunity to set out the membership in the regulations that establish the council.

I therefore ask both members not to move their amendments, with a view to working with us outwith legislation and, if reassurance cannot be provided, to revisit whether the suggested level of prescriptiveness is needed when we come to making the regulations. Regulations would at least be much easier to amend than the bill, which would make it easier to ensure that the council continues to meet future needs.

I will come on to some of the points on which I agree with Mr Rennie. To pick up on his point about a crisis, we need to be mindful of some of the challenges that exist in our education system. However, in that regard the inspectorate has not been in the same challenging position as the SQA in recent years. I am not sure that a comparison can be made between those bodies.

There is a strength in the inspectorate, and it will be further strengthened by the Government putting those responsibilities into statute, which was not previously the case. I will go on to talk about some of the points—

I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the cross-party talks that we will all enter into, so I will leave that issue there. I am happy to engage with members on the substantive point. I hear the convener’s point; others have made similar points.

Members need to be mindful of the fact that qualifications Scotland will have functions in relation to devising and reviewing qualifications and assessments. We will seek assurances on the validity of those processes, which will continue to play a key role. For example, in the same way that the SQA does, I would expect qualifications Scotland to have a head of standards to oversee and support the organisation’s approach to maintaining and improving standards throughout all stages of qualifications Scotland’s qualifications and awarding processes.

Members have recognised that the accreditation function that we discussed last week, which delivers oversight of the quality assurance of the assessment components within the qualifications system, plays an important role. We have already spoken at length about that, as I have alluded to, and we have discussed the role of accreditation in the system from the point of view not only of its location, but of its reach and scope. Last week, in response to Mr Kerr, I made the point that members needed to be mindful of the fact that not all qualifications in Scotland are currently accredited. When we talk about scope, we should be mindful of the effect on the qualifications portfolio in its totality.

It is clear that all those elements of Mr Ross’s amendments cannot be discussed in isolation from one another, or from the points that Mr Rennie made. I would like to discuss all those matters in the round when we have our meeting on accreditation in the coming weeks.

For all those reasons, I cannot support Mr Ross’s amendments in their current form. I ask Mr Ross not to press amendment 297 or to move amendments 298 to 301, with a view to our revisiting those points on a collective basis at stage 3.