Chamber and committees

I am glad that Pam Duncan-Glancy lodged the amendments. I thoroughly enjoy stretching the scope of a bill to its greatest possible extent, as anybody who is tracking the Housing (Scotland) Bill will have noticed.

This is a useful debate, because I agree that Education Scotland underperforms and needs to be dramatically improved. A legitimate debate is to be had about its status as an executive agency. It seems to be implicit, but not entirely clear, that curriculum Scotland would take a number of the responsibilities that are currently those of Education Scotland. Is it Pam Duncan-Glancy’s intention that Education Scotland staff would transfer to curriculum Scotland? If so, would that be under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations? What kind of consultation would she envisage with unions?

Subsequent to that, despite the fact that she has, rightly, posed the question about regulation-making powers to the Government a number of times, the amendments as currently drafted—I take the point that they are not being moved—do not specify the use of the affirmative procedure. Does she agree that, if we were ever to go about such a dramatic change—which, apart from anything else, would involve large numbers of Scottish Government staff being moved into another body and having their terms of employment changed—there would need to be a high level of parliamentary scrutiny; and, if we were to agree to it, that we should not write a blank cheque to ministers to decide how to go about it without subsequent parliamentary scrutiny?

I am sorry for cutting off Pam Duncan-Glancy. I should have come in more quickly, at the end of her explanation on amendment 248. I am sympathetic to some elements of that amendment, particularly with regard to those who have lived experience of the system. However, not to use pejorative language, but the phrase “the blob” has been used a few times to refer to the plethora of public bodies that are involved in Education Scotland and how, when they come together, they tend to generate more inertia than momentum in the system. My concern is that, by bringing so many of them into the strategic advisory council, we would make it harder for those who try to bring their lived and practical experience of the system to the fore in those discussions.

Does the member recognise those concerns about the presence of so many people from the other public bodies that are involved in the sphere, as opposed to the lived experience of young people, parents, teachers, lecturers and so on?

On the issue of terms and conditions, my concern is that the Scottish Government sets a floor on terms and conditions through its fair work policies, on which a lot of progress has been made in recent years. It seems that amendment 147 would take the inspectors out of that process. Could you address that concern?

I get the broad direction of travel, and I will talk about the amendments more widely in a moment, but on terms and conditions specifically, my worry is that the amendment would take the inspectors out of alignment with other Scottish public sector workers, who benefit from fair work policies that have long been campaigned for, particularly by trade unions.

Despite the notable absence of the 20-page speech and our much-missed colleague Mr Kerr, the issue has been well aired. Given the time, I am happy to conclude there. I will press the lead amendment in the group, but, in expectation of the result, I will not subject members to having to vote on every amendment in the group once we come to them.

Oh—my apologies.

My amendment 34 would simply apply a principle of transparency to qualifications Scotland’s operations. Again, that is a reflection on what has led us to this point, with the lack of transparency at the SQA and the lack of trust in it being the key drivers behind the process, as the cabinet secretary has already acknowledged.

It has been particularly difficult for the Parliament to hold the organisation to account, but it has also been difficult for the key stakeholders involved in the SQA. They are critical to its success and its being respected within the landscape. They have found it incredibly challenging to understand what is going on, never mind feel that their positions have been taken on board.

For example, it should not be a requirement that whatever advice the learner panel gives the SQA—or whatever advice the learner interest committee, as it will be, will give to qualifications Scotland—be followed. However, the panel should be able to understand—and it should be clear to it—how the organisation has taken on board its advice and what its response is. We will be dealing with some of the specifics of the committees elsewhere, but I want to apply a general principle of transparency to the organisation’s operations, because the lack of transparency is one of the key reasons for our getting to this point in the process.

My amendment 4 follows the same principle as my amendments 2 and 3 in seeking to prioritise the needs of those taking qualifications and those delivering qualifications here in Scotland. However, given the agreement that I have already reached with the cabinet secretary, as a result of which I have not moved amendments 2 and 3, I will take the same approach with amendment 4, and we can come back at stage 3 with something that packages everything together.

As my amendment 5, which refers to the strategic advisory council, has essentially been replaced by my amendment 61, I will not move amendment 5 and we can have a full debate on amendment 61, to save time.

My amendment 6 deals with a couple of different issues that have already been touched upon. It is partly about coherence in the system, so instead of—or alongside, perhaps—seeking to name the various specific organisations and other key public organisations that I think qualifications Scotland should be working and have coherence with, it tries to apply the general principle of policy coherence across Government to qualifications Scotland. For example, if it is decided that life sciences are a key strategic economic priority for Scotland—which I would suggest is essential—qualifications Scotland should have regard to whether the qualifications that it is offering contribute to that. For example, is it developing national qualifications that meet the needs of colleges and universities offering courses in, for example, life sciences?

The same approach could be applied to other areas. For example, are we meeting the particularly acute workforce needs in social care?

I am grateful to the member for allowing us to have a debate on this issue. However, I am not clear about the rationale regarding the role of a headteacher. From my reading of the amendment, it appears that it would have to be the headteacher who would supervise any pupils with additional needs who get extra time. I am not convinced that that is the best use of a headteacher’s time in a high school setting. I am particularly concerned about whether that would be practically possible, given the timetabling of exams and the very high proportion of pupils who now have a recognised additional need, even if we were to feel that the headteacher was the most appropriate individual.

John Mason makes a good point. The short answer is no. In and of itself, the solution that is proposed in amendment 280 is not a guaranteed solution, but it is one of a range of measures that we are seeking to include in the bill to provoke the board to participate actively in the process and to fulfil its obligations to scrutinise the corporate plan. It does not guarantee anything other than that board members would, at a certain point in the process, have to make at least one active decision—in other words, they would have to actively vote on the plan.

As John Mason said, we have all been at meetings with people who have voted for or against something and who, it has been quite clear, have not read the papers before the meeting. I am sure that that does not apply to anyone who is at this meeting.

We cannot legislate for everyone to be an effective board member, but we can legislate to build in little mechanisms that provoke some kind of action. Although amendment 280 would not guarantee success, it would, at least, make it a bit more likely.

My amendments 68 and 70 cover a lot of the same ground as the amendments lodged by the cabinet secretary and Pam Duncan-Glancy. What I am trying to do with both amendments is put the principle of co-design in the bill—through amendment 68 for the learner charter and through amendment 70 for the teacher and practitioner charter. It is not good enough to consult with learners, teachers and practitioners only for someone else—qualifications Scotland staff—to go away and draft the charters. They should be co-designed with those groups.

The amendments are based on principles similar to those of a draft amendment that was presented to us all by the Educational Institute of Scotland in relation to the learner charter. They are simply trying to get the principle of co-design in the bill, because that is a superior process to consultation. Co-design is what we should aspire to with documents that will take on the importance that we all believe the charters should have. The cabinet secretary’s amendment 69 will strengthen what is in the bill, but it is still based on the principle of consultation rather than co-design.

I understand that the Government has some specific concerns in relation to my amendments. Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 255 sits somewhat in the middle, because it would require qualifications Scotland to work with those who have been consulted to prepare and publish the charter. There are elements of co-design and consultation in that amendment.

Given that we are all heading in the same direction on this issue, it may be the case—as with a number of other groups—that we can come together at stage 3 to get something that fulfils all our objectives. I will be looking for a commitment from the cabinet secretary that the principle of co-design will be enshrined in the bill and that consultation alone is not sufficient for the charters.

I will touch on a couple of the other amendments in the group—but not all of them, given how many there are. With regard to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 261 and 271, I would be wary of enforcing unequivocal compliance with the charters. We can all envisage situations in which that may not be possible because of overriding concerns. For example, if the charters had been in place at the time of the pandemic, I imagine they would have improved outcomes in a whole range of ways in relation to the decisions that the SQA made. However, I can also imagine situations in which it would have been impossible, for reasons relating to public health, to fulfil aspects of what I expect will end up being in the charter. That is a legitimate point.

I take the member’s point, which I do not think is unreasonable. He is broadly correct that a lot of this comes down to individuals. Part of the challenge that we have with the bill is that, in a lot of instances, we are trying to legislate for cultural change, which is hard to do. Ideally, legislating is not the way in which you change culture; however, the bill does provide us, as the Parliament, with an opportunity to do that. I hope that the Government will take a range of other measures, as the organisation is set up, to ensure that its culture is different from what went before.

Without seeking to personalise this, I would suggest that, as much as criticism can be made of individuals, the particular point about taking on board views expressed by Parliament reflects an issue that was consistent at the SQA even after changes in its leadership. I would say that there was a wider cultural challenge in that respect—it was not simply down to one or two individuals not having sufficient respect for Parliament; the problem persisted throughout the changes that were made.