Chamber and committees

I would argue that Education Scotland fulfils much of the recommendations that were contained in the Muir review. My refocusing of the organisation last year has certainly helped to drive some of that.

If we go back to the wording that was used in the Muir review, we see that the report recommended a national education agency, which was to be an executive agency, not an NDPB. There is no need for legislation in this space, arguably. That is the point that I was trying to make in my opening response.

More broadly, and as I noted in my response on Mr Kerr’s amendment 290, although curriculum review and improvement will still be the primary focus of Education Scotland, the remit of our national education agency needs to extend further than just the curriculum. Professor Ken Muir noted the need to simplify the complex landscape in Scotland, which Mr Briggs alluded to, and I think that inserting a new education body into that landscape would add an unnecessary layer of complexity in the system.

Refocusing the work of Education Scotland achieves the overall aims of Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments and ensures that we have a national body that is focused on curriculum and that is informed by teachers, children and young people, without the need for a new stand-alone body.

On that basis, I cannot support the amendments.

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.

Forgive me—it is in relation to the wording around knowledge and skills learning. I would like to revisit that with Ms Duncan-Glancy ahead of stage 3, if she supports that approach. I would like to discuss some tweaks to the terminology.

Mr Greer’s amendment 6 would place a duty on qualifications Scotland to

“have regard to the economic, social and environmental priorities of the Scottish Ministers.”

Alignment with Government objectives is a fundamental obligation for Scotland’s public bodies. It will be the role of the board of qualifications Scotland to ensure that. Scottish ministers also set out priorities for public bodies via strategic guidance letters annually, which include priorities in the areas that Mr Greer lists. Although I do not believe that his amendment is strictly needed, I am content for it to be supported in order to provide additional assurances that those factors will be considered.

Mr Greer has also lodged amendment 34, which seeks to ensure that qualifications Scotland will act in a “transparent and accountable” way. I agree that that must be a founding tenet of qualifications Scotland, just as it should be, and is, for all public bodies, but I cannot support amendment 34 as drafted and am keen to work with him on an alternative approach. It would be more effective to define the activities and processes that would deliver that transparency and accountability, rather than having an overarching principle as is expressed in the amendment as currently drafted.

What constitutes “transparent and accountable” behaviour is often open to interpretation, which means that qualifications Scotland could be behaving in line with best practice on transparency and accountability but that those behaviours could be challenged as not being transparent or accountable enough. The bill already gives many examples of activities and processes that support greater transparency and accountability, such as the interest committees, the charters and the reporting duties, and many amendments from Mr Greer and other members also seek to embed specific transparent and accountable behaviours, so I ask Mr Greer not to move amendment 34, with a view to working with me to build on that work ahead of stage 3.

Finally, I turn to Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 240, which seeks to prescribe a duty on qualifications Scotland to

“have regard to the desirability of simplifying, or ensuring the coherence of, the qualifications system”.

The simplification of our qualifications system was one of the key recommendations that the Scottish Government accepted from the independent review of qualifications and assessment.

Members will be aware that the SQA is already taking a range of actions to support the delivery of that commitment, and qualifications Scotland will take those forward. For example, the SQA is undertaking a review and rationalisation of its qualifications offer. However, the qualifications, training and skills system is vast and has many actors with aligned, but often different, responsibilities. So, although qualifications Scotland will have a role in that, and will work towards simplifying its own qualifications offer, it will not have an oversight role for the entire system and it is therefore not within the gift of qualifications Scotland alone to simplify the entire system or to ensure coherence across it.

For those reasons, I do not support amendment 240 and I ask the member not to move it.

Ms Duncan-Glancy has raised some very important issues. However, I am not clear that they will be resolved through this bill, and I suggest that they relate to Mr Whitfield’s point about the UNCRC act. If she would like, I would be happy to attempt to arrange engagement among both members and Ms Somerville’s officials who led on the UNCRC act. We must have a coherent cross-Government approach, and I am mindful that the UNCRC act was led by Ms Somerville’s team last year. If members are content, I will take that challenge away.

With amendments 261, 271 and 285, Ms Duncan-Glancy is seeking to ensure compliance with the charters and ensure that how they are being upheld is reported on. The bill already provides that the charters must be created to set out user expectations, and that qualifications Scotland must report on how it plans to and has satisfied the expectations of the charters.

However, we must be mindful that unforeseen circumstances can change the expectations of users and the capacity of organisations to meet those expectations. The pandemic, as we have heard, is a case in point: the expectations that we all had about how things should happen had to change. I raise that point because, the requirement for absolute compliance with expectations might be something that can never be truly fully achieved. That is why I cannot support amendments 261 and 271.

I fully agree that qualifications Scotland should always work hard to meet the expectations in the charters, and I agree that how the charters are upheld should be reported on, including actions taken to address any issues. Therefore, if she does not move amendments 261 and 271, I would be happy to work with Ms Duncan-Glancy ahead of stage 3 to incorporate her amendment 285 into the existing charter reporting requirements.

I support the principle behind her amendments 265, 272 and 278. It has always been the intention of the interest committees to be closely involved in the development and review of the charters. Those provisions provide additional assurance that that will happen. However, legally, the committees are not persons, as they are not bodies corporate, so inserting them into a list that is about persons does not quite work.

In addition, amendment 278, as drafted, would require both committees to be involved in the revision of either charter, not just the charter that is relevant to the committee in question. That appears to be inadvertent, as it is a departure from what is set out in the amendments in relation to the original charters. I therefore offer to work with Ms Duncan-Glancy on that aspect for stage 3, and ask that she does not move these amendments.

As for the strategic advisory council being involved in the creation and reviewing of the charters, I cannot support Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 266, 274 and 279 as drafted. Although I agree that the council will have an interest in commenting on the charters, I do not agree with its being given the authority with regard to revising the charters. The council is a strategic-level forum for a wide range of system stakeholders, beyond simply learners and teachers, and I do not think it appropriate that it should have powers to alter the charters when those have been co-produced with learners and teachers. I would support an alternative amendment that would give the council the opportunity to comment on the charters—if the member would be happy to work with me on that, I ask that she does not move these amendments.

I turn to Mr Kerr’s amendment 270, which proposes that the teacher and practitioner charter sets out how qualifications Scotland would work with Education Scotland in relation to professional learning and development. I do not support the amendment for similar reasons to those that apply to amendments 257 and 269. It is for the service users—in this case, teachers and practitioners—to co-produce the content. The point of co-production is not to prescribe the charters’ contents in legislation.

I believe that Mr Kerr’s amendment 236 in group 10, which I support, would be more effective in ensuring that qualifications Scotland develops relevant professional learning and development for qualifications with Education Scotland. I ask Mr Kerr not to move amendment 270, so that we can focus on ensuring that we get amendment 236 right for stage 3.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 273 seeks to specify a range of stakeholders who must be consulted on the creation of the teacher and practitioner charter. Although I agree that education trade unions will have a key role in shaping the charter through consultation, their involvement is captured through existing provisions.

Furthermore, I do not agree with the range of other stakeholders that Ms Duncan-Glancy is seeking to specify in legislation to be consulted on the charter. Some of those will be captured by the catch-all provision that I have just highlighted. However, it is unclear what importance, for example, Universities Scotland, subject-matter experts and those with knowledge of business and industry would need to be given in a charter that is focused on supporting those who directly deliver qualifications. I therefore do not support amendment 273, and I encourage members to take the same position.

Mr Briggs’s amendment 130 and consequential amendment 208, and Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 275, would each place a requirement on qualifications Scotland to create additional charters. I do not support those amendments, for the following reasons. The bill already provides qualifications Scotland with the ability to consider creating other charters as it requires. However, I remind members that one of the key priorities for qualifications Scotland is restoring trust and accountability with children, young people and adult learners, and with our teaching profession. This is why the learner charter and the teacher and practitioner charter are an immediate priority and, in my view, must be enshrined in legislation. I believe that it is right that they are the initial focus.

I fully agree that parents and carers have a crucial role in supporting children and young people, and that they therefore have a role in ensuring that qualifications Scotland meets the needs of their children. We have already established the Scottish Assembly of Parents and Carers, which is delivered by Connect, and I would expect all national bodies, including qualifications Scotland, to take account of the assembly’s findings, which come directly from parents from all over Scotland. That further demonstrates our commitment to listening to parents and carers as advocates for their children. I lodged amendment 69 to ensure that parents and carers are included, although, having listened to the discussion, I am keen to work with members on how we can arrive at a mutually agreeable solution for stage 3 to that end, as previously intimated.

Turning to the post-school learner and practitioner charter. I am not clear why a separate charter is needed. Although I recognise that school and post-school settings can have different needs, I do not think that that warrants a separate charter, and it risks confusion. I also question the value of a combined charter for learners and practitioners when they will have different needs and expectations. It is my expectation that learners and practitioners in post-school settings would be captured in the respective charters for which the bill already provides.

Finally—as members will be pleased to hear—I come to amendments 276 and 277, from Ms Duncan-Glancy, which seek to reduce the review period of the charters from five years to three. I can see the merits of that reduction; however, I am mindful of not only the administrative burden, but the burden that we might place on children, young people, adult learners and teachers by more regularly consulting them on areas on which they have already given their views.

Three-yearly reviews would risk consultation fatigue; I also wonder whether three years is long enough for the impact of the charters to be seen. I highlight that the bill currently requires a review “within”, rather than after, five years, so there is flexibility built in to enable a review to take place at an earlier stage, should it be required. For these reasons, I ask the member not to move amendments 276 and 277.

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—

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.

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 structure 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 adviser 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.

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.