Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

That is a fair point, which is why I landed on the phrase “have regard to” in amendment 6. It would therefore not be a requirement that qualifications Scotland follow the specific priorities set out by the Government of the time; instead, it should “have regard to” them.

After all, there are a number of challenges here. There is the core democratic challenge of Governments, which is that, regardless of their political hue or ideology, they have a democratic mandate to pursue whatever course of action they want. However, another challenge is this: if priorities are not set out by the Government, who does set them out? We in the Parliament might have reached as close to a consensus as possible on a whole range of issues—my example of life sciences is probably one area that we would all agree should be a strategic priority for Scotland—but somebody needs to set out the priorities.

Let me take, for example, an area that has been recently discussed. There are thousands of gas boiler engineers in Scotland who at some point over the coming years—we disagree on the timescale—will need to be retrained. Alongside being a gas boiler engineer, they will also need to be qualified in the installation and maintenance of, say, heat pumps. Therefore, we must ensure that our qualifications system provides for them and their long-term economic security.

The same could be applied to other areas. The film and television industry is a good example of an area where the SQA has been nimble and responded not just to the needs of industry but to other public bodies.

It is not unusual for us to hear, often in private, criticism from officials of other public bodies in Scotland that they have not had the engagement that they needed from the SQA and have not been able to update qualifications—nor, indeed, to develop new ones—to meet the needs of a particular sector of the economy. The screen sector is one for which, in recent years, there has been excellent collaboration between the SQA and Screen Scotland; I want to make sure of an underlying principle to mainstream that approach across the piece, to make sure that qualifications Scotland plays its role in those wider efforts.

I agree with all the cabinet secretary’s amendments in the group. I congratulate in particular the young people, their parents, carers and the organisations that work with them, who campaigned for the British Sign Language provisions that the cabinet secretary has taken forward. The efforts that they have made are worth all our congratulations.

I turn, very briefly, to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments. I agree with her amendment 234. It aligns with my amendment 6 and my amendment 35, which is in another group. I absolutely agree with her amendment 235. If the SQA had been keeping up to date with developments in pedagogy, our qualifications system—certainly, our exam system—would look very different to the one that we have at the moment, which is, in its fundamental principles, almost entirely unchanged from the system that was first set up in the Victorian era in order to have a national exam system in Scotland.

I have concerns about Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 240, because, to me, “simplifying” and “ensuring ... coherence” are different aims. I can get behind the principle of coherence, but I am wary about what “simplifying” means; I think that it means something different to each of us—certainly, from discussions in the past, I think that the cabinet secretary and I have different ideas on the desirability of a simplified system and perhaps on which qualifications are no longer necessary, which is why I am wary about putting such a provision in legislation, certainly without expanding or clarifying what “simplifying” means. The drafting of amendment 240 says “simplifying” rather than “simple”; are we to be in a never-ending process of trying to simplify the system regardless of how simple it becomes? I am therefore not particularly convinced by amendment 240 at this stage, to be honest.

I have already said that I strongly agree with the principle of Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 237, but we need to make sure that it cuts both ways. I agree with her amendment 239 and with Stephen Kerr’s amendment 236.

Again, my amendments in this group are about increasing transparency and confidence that qualifications Scotland is engaging with the advice that it receives. I should say that my amendments 36 and 37 and Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 283 and 284 do essentially the same thing, mine for the interest committees and Ms Duncan-Glancy’s for the advisory committee.

The amendments would require qualifications Scotland to publish the advice that it receives and the response that it has produced. That is about trying to increase transparency, and it would give those involved on the interest committees and on the advisory committee more confidence that their advice was being taken seriously, even on occasions when that advice was not necessarily taken on board. It is critical for those in the system more widely, including learners and practitioners, to see that advice and how the body is responding to it.

One of the criticisms of the SQA has been that it does not take on board advice from those with direct knowledge of how to deliver the qualifications or experience of undertaking them. Increasing transparency in that regard would, I think, result in greater buy-in and trust across the system.

I move amendment 36.

In conclusion, I confirm that the basis on which I would be happy not to move my amendments—and I suggest that the same is true for others—is that the cabinet secretary confirms that the Government accepts the principle of co-design as part of the process.