Chamber and committees

This will be a short one from me to start off with.

I will be moving amendment 3 for the same reasons that I moved, and we debated, amendment 2 last week. I want the bill to make it clear that there should be a hierarchy of priorities for qualifications Scotland, with domestic Scottish learners’ needs, and the services provided for them, being put above the organisation’s international commercial activity. That has been an issue, particularly in the five to 10 years leading up to the pandemic; it has been less of an issue following the pandemic, but there is nothing in the bill to safeguard against the return of what I believe to be the skewed priorities of the Scottish Qualifications Authority’s senior management.

Amendment 3 simply continues the debate that we had on amendment 2 by seeking to ensure that the hierarchy of priorities is clear and that Scottish learners and their interests are always put ahead of any commercial activity.

I move amendment 3.

Does Ms Duncan-Glancy agree with me that it is farcical that we have got to the point at which our national qualifications body and our national curriculum body, which are based in the same building, could not speak to each other on something as fundamental as whether you could timetable nine times 140 hours into a school year?

As the cabinet secretary has indicated, I will not be pressing amendment 3, in line with the agreement that we reached last week on amendment 2. I am happy to bring back an alternative version underpinned by the same principles at stage 3.

Amendment 3, by agreement, withdrawn.

I am happy not to move amendment 4. I take on board the cabinet secretary’s point about the impact that language such as “have regard to” and “give due regard to” should have, and is intended to have, in legislation. Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge, however, that there are already requirements in legislation for the SQA to “have regard to” or “give due regard to” a variety of factors? Part of the reason why we are here is that it has not done so, and therefore it is worth our asking how we can strengthen those requirements in legislation. I understand entirely that the solutions to that particular problem are not all in legislation—some of them are cultural and organisational, and it is not appropriate to try to legislate for those. However, it is worth our exploring how we can address some of the deficiencies in the legislation that underpins the SQA.

I want to respond directly to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s point about pre-empting the Scottish Languages Bill. It is worth noting that the Scottish Government has already accepted in principle the proposals that Ms Duncan-Glancy and I made at stage 2 of that bill in relation to the SQA and Education Scotland and the use of Gaelic. The significance of the Scottish Languages Bill is that, for the first time in law, it recognises the Scots language.

The point about sequencing is fair, but, as far as I am aware—other members can intervene to correct me—no date has been set for stage 3 of the languages bill. The challenge is that, if we do not do this now, we might miss the opportunity to do it at all. Given the outcomes of the stage 1 and stage 2 debates on the Scottish Languages Bill, it is clear where the consensus—or, at least, majority opinion—lies in the Parliament.

It is worth saying that, on my amendments in relation to Scots, amendment 23 takes the definition agreed at stage 2 of the Scottish Languages Bill. As for how that would be applied, all the amendments do is make qualifications Scotland and the inspectorate ask themselves whether they are communicating in a way that is appropriate for users of the Scots language. It would not compel them to produce every corporate plan, annual report, exam paper and so on in Scots as well as in English—that would be disproportionate—but it would require them to consider questions of accessibility to users of the Scots language, which I think is appropriate. After all, according to the last census, it was the language of somewhere in the region of 2 million to 2.5 million people out of a population of 5.5 million in Scotland.

I, too, recognise that Miles Briggs is moving amendment 290 on behalf of another member. I understand the principle behind it, but I am concerned about how narrowly it has been drafted. I am thinking about the exclusion of adult learners and college lecturers. Education Scotland serves more than just teachers and the children and young people in their schools. If we were to agree to amendment 290, it would dramatically narrow the range of people who would be involved, and it would create some ambiguity about the place in the process of those adult learners who undertake qualifications associated with the curriculum for excellence and the college lecturers who deliver those qualifications, whether to adult learners or to those children and young people who receive their education in a college setting.

I agree. I think that we are all trying to coalesce around the same end point, and we just need to make sure that we take a consistent approach across the various groups of amendments that are all in that same space.

The cabinet secretary’s amendment 67 is separate to that. I agree with that one and I hope that it is moved.

I do not agree with amendment 245. I want the Scottish Government to be in the room and to hear the discussions of the advisory council, because my optimistic take on this is that the advisory council will have robust discussions and provide robust advice. It is reasonable for Scottish Government officials or ministers to be in the room to be able to hear and take part in those discussions, at the discretion of the convener and if it is appropriate at the time.

Amendment 246 relates to curriculum Scotland, which we will have a debate about. I am not in favour of the creation of curriculum Scotland, so I am not in favour of amendment 246.

On amendment 249, I suggest that my amendment 62 goes further than that and simply clarifies that there will be no qualifications Scotland staff on the advisory council; that deals with the issue.

Amendments 250 and 251 tip over the line to being a bit too prescriptive. It is appropriate for us to instruct qualifications Scotland to consult with networks, but the strategic advisory council should have a bit more autonomy in how it approaches discharging its role to make sure that it provides robust and relatively independent advice.

Finally, I agree with the principle of Miles Briggs’s amendment 129. I realise that it is always odd to speak to somebody else’s amendments before they have had the chance to speak to them. My point is on the issue that we spoke about last week around making sure that language is inclusive of carers as well as parents. Mr Briggs has a later amendment that clarifies that the definition of parents includes carers but, given the comments that the cabinet secretary made last week, I wonder whether there is an approach that we could take so that the language that is used throughout the bill is consistent and we avoid a situation in which there is any ambiguity for anybody who ever looks at a particular provision in the bill and misses the fact that it says elsewhere that “parent” also means “carer” in those circumstances.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I have a lot of sympathy for the principle behind amendment 302, but I want to confirm that it will not be pressed at this stage, given that it is premised on the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body making the appointment recommendation. Amendments in that regard have not been moved, and we are taking that debate outside proceedings ahead of stage 3. The principle is useful to debate, but what is currently in amendment 302 would not be applicable to the system as it stands.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for indicating her willingness to work with me ahead of stage 3 on these proposals. I would just like to test her appetite for the specific element of amendment 78 that relates to having someone on the advisory council who would represent the interests of the inspectorate’s staff. I am particularly interested in the Government’s position on that, because I think that there is broad consensus on other elements of the proposals. When we were debating similar issues in relation to qualifications Scotland, there was not quite consensus in that regard—although the proposal was somewhat different—so I am keen to check the cabinet secretary’s position, in principle, on involving inspectorate staff or those who represent their interests.