Chamber and committees

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.

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.

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 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.

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.