Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is the intention that the reports that are requested by the Scottish ministers would be shared. I take the point about the numbers that are involved, and I am happy to reflect on what that could mean and come back to the issue at stage 3. I appreciate the member’s contribution.

Amendment 342 requires the chief inspector to share a copy of their annual report, to be presented to the Parliament and to ministers at the same time. Amendment 345 requires the chief inspector to share a copy of the report on the performance of the education system, to be presented to the Parliament and to ministers at the same time. Amendment 349 requires the chief inspector to share a copy of any other report, to be presented to the Parliament and to ministers at the same time. Given what Ross Greer has just put to me, I will reflect on his point before stage 3 in relation to amendments 340 and 349. Nonetheless, amendments 342 and 345 are important.

All of those amendments would give Parliament an opportunity to have real scrutiny of the education system in Scotland. I recognise the important role that the chief inspector of education plays and the importance of the role having a strong degree of independence from the Government. Hence, I support a number of the amendments in the name of Sue Webber—in the interests of time, I will not list them all—that strengthen the independence of the chief inspector by, among other things, making several functions accountable to the Parliament rather than to ministers.

However, there are some aspects of the role of the chief inspector that should not be politicised in the way that being accountable to the Parliament might make them. Therefore, I cannot support Sue Webber’s amendments 146, 153, 154 and 155, which relate to matters such as the terms and conditions of staff employed in the chief inspector’s office. Those should continue to be determined with the approval of ministers.

A number of Willie Rennie’s amendments are direct alternatives to amendments in the name of Sue Webber that I support, so I cannot support them.

Stephen Kerr’s amendment 307 seeks to insert a provision that is already covered by wording in the bill, so I would be interested to hear why it is thought that the amendment is needed. At this point, I am not convinced that it is.

Amendment 187, in the name of Sue Webber, relates to powers of entry and inspection in respect of a dwelling house. I am not against it, but given that we have not heard any evidence on—

In my opening remarks on this group, I forgot to mention an entire amendment in my name, but Stephen Kerr and others have picked that up, so I thank them for that. Amendment 354 describes what the SCQF Partnership is and sets that out.

I have listened carefully to the discussion and will pick up on a couple of things. I note that my colleague George Adam made a point about Ken Muir’s understanding of the SCQF Partnership. Ken’s report says that the feedback that he received indicated that giving an enhanced role to the partnership would improve support for learner journeys and that,

“In particular, it was felt that SCQF has the potential to play an enhanced role in Scottish education to support all learners progress seamlessly on their learning journeys, recognising and valuing different types of learning (formal, informal and non-formal) and ensuring greater parity of esteem across qualifications and awards.”

Professor Muir is clear about the value of the partnership.

On the basis of the cabinet secretary’s offer to work together at stage 3, I am happy not to press amendment 232 or move amendment 234.

I am not convinced that it would be useful to allow that level of flex, as I might call it, so that qualifications Scotland could decide whether or not to work with a group of people. In the past few years, we have seen a complete failure of the national qualifications body to collaborate well. It worries me that we would weaken that duty.

We are supportive of Ross Greer’s amendment 3.

My amendment 230 seeks to place a duty on qualifications Scotland to make arrangements to ensure the quality of the qualifications that develop under the terms of the legislation. The questions that we have had in recent weeks and months about specific qualifications—higher history is an example—are such that we need to ensure as much robustness, credibility and trust in the system as we possibly can.

There is a gap in the bill in that respect, because it does not include a clear mechanism for safeguarding such standards. As such a mechanism is important, I have lodged amendment 230 to ensure that qualifications are consistently high in quality and are credible. I believe that that will command the confidence of learners, employers and the public, which is exactly what the reforms should be doing.

I agree that there would need to be parliamentary scrutiny, and the affirmative approach would be appropriate. One reason why the regulation aspect was written into the amendment was because I recognised that I was doing it at stage 2, which is not ideal. As I think I have made clear, I would have preferred it to be set out by the Government, through its taking into consideration all the recommendations of the independent review.

Notwithstanding the point that we will all return to this discussion before stage 3, will the cabinet secretary set out how the Government will therefore implement the suggestions in the Muir review around creating a national body for the curriculum?

I am not sure that I accept that. I hope that that is not an indication that the stage 3 discussions that we all agreed to last week are now closed off from the Government.

My amendments in this group are about what we would expect in practice from qualifications Scotland in relation to how it will make decisions, who it will listen to and engage with, and what principles it will prioritise. The amendments strengthen the duties in the bill by ensuring that qualifications Scotland is not only delivering qualifications but also building a system that is relevant, accessible, future facing and rooted in collaboration, building on the previous amendments. My amendments also ensure that qualifications Scotland is not only keeping up with change but that it helps to drive it, and that it recognises the importance of economic trends, emerging industries and developments in learning.

All the amendments in this group create a qualifications system that serves the learner and the labour market, from renewables and digital to the care economy and beyond. I do not think that we can allow or afford for qualifications Scotland to work in isolation, as we have just discussed, and these amendments build bridges with key public agencies—including SFC, SDS and Education Scotland—to create the joined-up coherence in the system that, it has been suggested, it has lacked. Learners are navigating an increasingly complex educational and employment landscape and these amendments help to bring clarity and consistency.

My amendment 234 would require qualifications Scotland to have regard to education and training that reflect the current and future needs of Scotland’s economy. I and supporters of the amendment believe that it would ensure that qualifications, and thus learners, can contribute to Scotland’s future in relation to what we need not only in our public services but also for our economic resilience and workforce preparedness. It is essential to deliver Scotland’s qualifications system in a way that is future facing and that does not lag behind economic demand or risk leaving learners unprepared for the realities of the future.

My amendment 235 builds on that and would require qualifications Scotland to be aware of and up to date with developments in learning across the whole range of knowledge and skills required and tested by qualifications delivered by qualifications Scotland. We heard that Professors Muir, Donaldson and Priestley have all supported a dynamic learning culture; by requiring qualifications Scotland to be aware of and up to date with developments in learning across the range of knowledge and skills that are tested, I hope that we could achieve their aspirations. The amendment will also support on-going development and improvement of qualifications.

I am supportive of the cabinet secretary’s amendment 55.

My amendment 240 would make the system much more simplified and coherent, creating a system that is accessible for all learners.

Amendment 236, in the name of Stephen Kerr, largely tries to achieve something similar to what my amendments would achieve, and we would be supportive of it.

My amendment 237 would require qualifications Scotland to have regard to any recommendations made by the SFC and SDS when making decisions. It is, again, an attempt to provide coherence. The Parliament is currently considering two bills in relation to education; in fact, I think that it is probably a wee bit more than that. However, there are two bills within this landscape, including post-16 education. The amendment seeks to ensure that there is collaboration across the systems and that any recommendations from those bodies are picked up in qualifications Scotland. It is a strong amendment to ensure accountability and collaboration.

I recognise the work that the cabinet secretary has outlined, including bringing teachers in to do the work that is necessary. That is another reason to require qualifications Scotland to consult Education Scotland, because it has that enhanced provision. It is important that they collaborate with one another and that they do not have the wriggle room to decide when they think that they have paid that due regard and decided that it was not necessary to do it. That is my fear, which is why I believe that amendment 233 is important.

I do not intend to press amendment 232 or move amendment 234, but I will move amendment 233.

I welcome the Government’s support and understanding of the arguments that we have made today. I will move amendment 233 on that basis.

Amendment 232, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 233 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Section 7—Duties when exercising functions