Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 7, 2025

Official Report 1208KB pdf

---

Education (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Good evening, and welcome back. Agenda item 3 is the continuation of our stage 2 consideration of the Education (Scotland) Bill. I welcome back the cabinet secretary, her supporting officials and members.

Section 27—Deputy Chief Inspector of Education in Scotland

Amendments 145 and 146 not moved.

Section 27 agreed to.

Section 28—His Majesty’s Inspectors of Education in Scotland

Amendments 79, 80, 147, 148, 81, 149, 150, 82, 151, 152 and 83 not moved.

Section 28 agreed to.

Section 29—Assistance with inspections

Amendments 153 and 154 not moved.

Section 29 agreed to.

Before section 30

Amendment 84, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 304, 85, 313, 86 and 111. I point out that amendment 85 is pre-empted by amendment 158, which was previously debated in the group on the independence of the chief inspector, and that amendment 86 is pre-empted by amendment 162, which was previously debated in the same group as amendment 158.

I thank Ms Duncan-Glancy and Mr Kerr for their amendments. I am pleased to see that we agree on the value of setting out the purposes of inspection in the bill.

The amendments that I have lodged set out clear purposes for inspection, which will ensure that the chief inspector carries out their functions to promote improvement in education and to hold relevant educational establishments accountable for the quality of the education that they deliver. By including a ministerial power to amend the inspection purposes through secondary legislation if those purposes ever need to be changed, my amendments will also allow a degree of flexibility.

It is important to note that I am minded to seek to withdraw amendment 84. Fundamentally, I remain open to further consideration of the purposes of inspection. I have a number of concerns about other members’ amendments in the group, which I will explain in a moment. Although I believe that there are many similarities between those that I have lodged and Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 313, at this point, I cannot support what she has set out, because, as well as making no reference to the importance of accountability, the amendment would appear to extend the chief inspector’s role to providing support for improvement, which would take resource and focus away from their core role, while risking blurring the very boundaries that removing the inspection function from Education Scotland will help to clarify.

I understand the cabinet secretary’s point about the inclusion in my amendment of a purpose that relates to improvement, but does she recognise that the Muir review and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development review suggested that inspection should have an improvement focus?

I recognise what Ms Duncan-Glancy is saying, and I would be keen to work with her on that aspect ahead of stage 3. There is much common ground in that area that we can work on, and I hope that, through joint consideration, we can reach a mutually agreeable position.

My concern with Stephen Kerr’s amendment 304 is that it is overly prescriptive. Including amendments of such a nature in the bill would make it difficult for the new chief inspector to develop their role organically and, importantly, it would limit their ability to respond to the changing needs of the education system over time. Although I agree on the importance of each of the issues that he has listed, they are not high-level purposes for the chief inspector to have regard to over the longer term. They would prevent the carrying out of focused thematic inspections by requiring every inspection to cover each of the matters listed. For example, discipline policies would always have to be inspected, as would the employment contracts held by teachers, even when those aspects were not relevant to the theme that the chief inspector wanted to examine.

Many of those matters are already included as quality indicators in the “How good is our school?” framework that is currently used by the inspectorate. I hope that that reassures Stephen Kerr that the concerns that his amendment 304 looks to address are currently, and will continue to be, of importance to the chief inspector.

It is important to highlight that the purposes specified in amendment 84 have been consulted on and align with those identified by Professor Muir—which was Pam Duncan-Glancy’s point—and that the drafting delivers a strong position on the purpose of inspection. Notwithstanding that, although I will move amendment 84 for the purpose of opening up this group for debate, I will be happy to seek to withdraw it if Pam Duncan-Glancy does not move her amendment 313, and I suggest that we work to identify an agreed position for stage 3. That will also allow me to ensure that, when we bring the matter back, we address a concern that has been raised by the EIS, which is that it be made clear that the purpose of inspection is to hold to account institutions, not individual teachers, which I agree with.

I urge Stephen Kerr not to move his alternative amendment—amendment 304—and I urge members not to support it if he does.

I move amendment 84.

I wish to say some words about why I felt the need to lodge amendment 304 in the first place. I think that many members will sympathise with the reasoning as to why these are salient issues in our education environment.

Amendment 304 states:

“An inspection under subsection (1) must include an assessment of, and any recommendations for improvements relating to ... the implementation and effectiveness of discipline policies ... the quality of the learning environment ... the support provided to persons with additional support needs, including access to appropriate resources and specialist support ... the morale and wellbeing of teachers and staff ... whether the number of teachers and staff in the establishment can meet the needs of the persons undertaking a qualification in that establishment ... the type of employment contract held by teachers and staff in the establishment ... the number”—

Will the member take an intervention?

Of course.

Would the type of employment contract not be fairly standard throughout a number of establishments? Would there not be a lot of repetition in that regard?

I imagine that John Mason has a point, but, in effect, he makes my point for me, because it has now become a feature of teacher employment that a large number of teachers have no permanent employment contract. As I will come on to, that creates all kinds of problems for those professionals—they are professionals—who cannot get on with the rest of their lives. They cannot establish themselves financially, and they cannot apply for certain products that might require them to have a permanent position of employment.

I understand why John Mason offers his intervention, but my amendment is grounded in the experiences of teachers and covers an issue that we should address.

Amendment 304 also provides that an inspection must cover

“the number of teachers in the establishment who ... are completing probationary service, or ... are newly qualified teachers, having completed their probationary service no more than 5 years before the date of the inspection”.

Those issues have been well covered in the chamber and elsewhere.

Finally, the amendment states:

“such other matters as the Chief Inspector considers appropriate.”

I am not seeking to be overly prescriptive, which is why that line in the amendment is included. I want the chief inspector to be fully independent and completely free to make observations and reports in relation to the broad remit that they will have in carrying out their function.

The first pillar of amendment 304 is

“the implementation and effectiveness of discipline policies”.

I make no apology for raising the rising incidence of violence and disruption in Scottish schools, which is affecting staff and students. The Scottish media has recently reported a disturbing surge in classroom violence, including assaults on teachers, support staff and even other pupils. There are such headlines in all our news outlets—The Courier, the Daily Record and BBC Scotland all speak of a discipline crisis in schools, with staff describing their daily exposure to aggression and fear.

It is therefore vital that the implementation and effectiveness of discipline policies are monitored and that—this is the critical point—good practice is shared and concerns are highlighted and remedied. I think that we all agree on the point, which I made in our earlier debate, that school leadership is a critical factor in the learning environment, particularly for discipline. It is therefore a crucial observation that school discipline is contingent on the quality of the learning environment, which is the second part of amendment 304, so it ought to be at the forefront of consideration during an inspection.

Education is not only about academic performance; it is about the development of healthy and resilient young people. That is what the curriculum for excellence and the pillars are all about. Concerns arise about whether the learning environment is dealing with the whole person, rather than just one aspect. I acknowledge that that is the danger of league tables, which highlight one aspect of a school’s performance, perhaps without any recognition or cognisance of the other issues that create a holistic learning environment.

The recent mental health crisis among young people has brought the issue into stark relief. Multiple reports across all forms of media have highlighted increased numbers of referrals to child and adolescent mental health services, long waiting times for mental health support and a growing number of pupils disengaging from school altogether. We have frequently discussed non-attendance at school, which is at critical levels. School staff who are already overstretched are often the first responders to mental distress, but they are rarely recognised or supported in that role. Those factors all contribute to the learning environment.

An inspection framework that ignores wellbeing is therefore out of step with the reality in schools and the priorities, as I understand them, of Scottish Government policy, including the national performance framework. By including wellbeing explicitly in the inspection criteria, amendment 304 will ensure that we evaluate not just what is taught but how young people experience their education. Are they safe? Are they supported? Are they thriving?

Will the issues that you are raising tonight not be dealt with tomorrow when the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills gives a statement to the chamber? Will those issues not be addressed then, rather than as part of the stage 2 debate tonight?

I am sure that they will feature in the cabinet secretary’s statement and that there will be questions along those lines, but we are talking about the Education (Scotland) Bill. It is appropriate for us to lodge amendments that we consider would be helpful in giving the bill the value that it ought to have in transforming educational opportunities for young people in Scotland. It is appropriate for the committee to discuss wellbeing, for example, which is a systemic issue that inspections must confront directly.

Amendment 304 would require the chief inspector to consider the extent to which learners’ needs were being met and their wellbeing safeguarded. The key point about why the amendment has some worth is that it would provide a statutory basis for more serious and consistent inspection of behaviour, discipline and safety in our schools.

I remind the committee and those watching of my declaration of interests.

Stephen Kerr highlights a number of points that, to a great extent, fall within the current inspection environment. I am slightly concerned about paragraph (c) of proposed new subsection (1A), because what, in essence, he is inviting the inspection to look at through amendment 304 is the qualification and competence of a teacher. The reference to

“undertaking a qualification in that establishment”

would tend to link to what are known, in the current parlance, as national 5s in high school. Is that not properly the responsibility of the management in the school in the first instance, and then the local authority? Indeed, if there is a question about competence, any approach to such matters lies with the General Teaching Council for Scotland, instead of an inspector being put in the position of having to comment on a professional status that has already been gained, in respect of which, I should add, there are protections, should someone be falling short.

18:00  

Amendment 304 refers to the complement of staff available to meet needs. An issue that comes up quite frequently—which I know Martin Whitfield will be aware of—is that, in many schools, it is felt that there are not sufficient numbers of classroom assistants. The intention behind that element of my amendment is to give the inspector the independence to be able to look at all those issues, and to put that in statute so that they are looked at very deliberately.

Returning to what I was saying about wellbeing, I do not know whether I need to stress this—I am sure that every member of the committee will already appreciate it—but, if schools are not safe environments for teaching and learning, every other objective of Scottish education will be jeopardised. Improvement, attainment and inclusion all depend on calm, secure and respectful classrooms.

I am not suggesting a return to punitive models of inspection; instead, amendment 304 would insist that inspectors asked the right questions. Are staff safe? Are learners being protected? Is disruption being addressed? Are the causes being tackled systemically? Those are the questions that I believe we should be enshrining in law.

I will move on quickly to talk about curriculum for excellence, which was designed with a focus on the four capacities. I believe that my amendment underpins that approach. The third pillar of amendment 304 is the requirement that inspections evaluate how well the education that is provided meets the needs of learners with additional support needs. That brings us back to Martin Whitfield’s intervention, so let me address the issue again.

This is not some vague generality; it goes to the heart of the national mission for excellence and equity in education. Across Scotland, however, there is mounting concern that that mission is falling short in practice. Audit Scotland’s report, “Improving outcomes for young people through school education”, which was published in 2021, made it clear that there is significant variation in outcomes between schools, councils and demographic groups; indeed, later reports have made the same point repeatedly.

That all points to the need for inspections to look not just at policy implementation or compliance with frameworks but at whether schools are actually meeting the specific and diverse needs of their pupils. Are disadvantaged learners receiving the support that they need? Are looked-after children being prioritised? Are learners with English as an additional language being included meaningfully?

I am listening to the member develop his points, and I do not deny the importance of all the issues that he is highlighting in relation to amendment 304. However, the issues that he is talking about in relation to additional support for learning, for example, could in themselves form the basis of one inspection, never mind being in addition to, say, a thematic inspection on numeracy. A thematic inspection on numeracy would itself have to adhere to all the requirements that he has stipulated in amendment 304 with regard to

“an assessment of, and any recommendations for, improvements relating to ... discipline policies ... the learning environment”

and so on. Does the member recognise that, if all of that, together with the issues that he is raising in relation to additional support needs, has to be taken into account, it might detract from the purpose of, say, a focused inspection on numeracy, where we have seen challenges in recent years?

I understand—or I think that I understand—the cabinet secretary’s point. I am not seeking, through amendment 304, to restrict an inspector’s ability to inspect schools in the way that they, as an independently operating agent, feel is appropriate to the establishment that they are in. However, there are some issues common to the education system that deserve a proper underpinning in statute to ensure that they are looked at and that there is an independent voice speaking truth to power—to Parliament and Government—about what is happening in our schools, without fear or favour.

I understand the discomfort about there being too much detail in the amendment, but if there is not sufficient understanding of what the detail leads to, we are no further forward. It is great that we will have an independent inspector. My party, among others, has campaigned for that development, which I think we welcome, but at the same time, we need to be sure that the inspections are of a nature and a culture, and have sufficient elements, to address the fundamental issues that we all know exist in the system.

I will move on to the next pillar, which is the morale and wellbeing of teachers. I know that the cabinet secretary is well aware that that is a fundamental issue, the root causes of which we would probably all broadly agree on. Including the morale and wellbeing of teachers is deliberate on my part. I believe that it is a necessary cultural intervention, which I will come back to with my later amendments.

We broadly agree on the need to improve the morale and wellbeing of teachers and staff, but I am conscious of how that requirement would interact with the fact that local authorities have a statutory responsibility for the delivery of education; in particular, they—not the Government—employ our teachers. Would there be a conflict in requesting, under amendment 304, assessment and recommendations for improvements relating to the morale and wellbeing of teachers and staff, given that local authorities—not the inspectorate—employ our teachers? I am interested in how that would work in practice.

I see the role of the inspector as speaking truth to power. I mentioned Government and Parliament, but any stakeholders, including local authorities and teaching unions, should listen to a voice of authority that reflects the reality that the inspector finds and reports. That is the voice of authority that an independent chief inspector ought to have, hence the consideration of culture, because it is a cultural issue.

Stephen Kerr mentions the reality that the inspector might find. Can that be objectively measured, and how would the inspector do that? They might say to the trade union representative that morale is terrible, but I presume that they would have to do something more than that.

John Mason makes a good point. The issue is not unique to this situation. Whenever there is an evaluation or assessment of a workplace, behaviours would have to be evidenced that demonstrate that certain situations are prevailing. It is not just about opinion. It would be evidenced by, as I say, demonstrated behaviours and reported incidents, because we need to listen to our teachers.

I have a concern, which I will come back to later, that our teachers feel a little beaten down and do not feel sufficiently confident in their own voice to speak up for themselves. The EIS has repeatedly raised concerns about the nature of inspections and how they might lead to the undermining of teacher professionalism, with members reporting that the process is often stressful, unpredictable and poorly aligned with educational priorities.

Amendment 304 is an attempt to address that by asserting that inspections engage with and give weight to the views and professional expertise of educators. It puts their voice at the centre of the inspection. That does not mean that the inspectors must accept, as John Mason says, every view uncritically. It means that they must recognise that teaching is a profession, and that teachers are not merely implementers of policy but reflective practitioners with insight, experience and skill. To go back to my earlier points about school violence, we need to listen more carefully, and directly, to our teachers.

I will move my remarks along, as I can tell that I am testing the patience of the committee, but these are important considerations.

A growing proportion of newly qualified teachers are being placed on temporary or short-term contracts. I understand the business logic behind that, but it is leading to instability in staffing and less consistency for learners. That lack of permanence and continuity undermines a school’s ability to establish and maintain a strong culture of discipline and respect. Younger, more inexperienced staff with limited classroom management experience and minimal job security are being asked to manage increasingly complex behaviours in settings with reduced staffing, fewer classroom assistants and rising levels of need.

It is vital that inspections ensure that not only pupils but teaching professionals are safe and looked after, which is why I have included provision for that in amendment 304. For an inspection to be truly effective, it must assess whether the school has all the skills, expertise and personnel that it needs in order to be successful. There is no point in a school’s having first-class facilities without the correct—or enough—personnel to utilise those.

Amendment 304 requires inspectors to take account of

“the type of employment contract held by teachers and staff in the establishment”

and

“the number of teachers in the establishment who ... are completing probationary service, or ... are newly qualified teachers, having completed their probationary service no more than 5 years before the date of the inspection”.

That is essential to understanding the culture and diversity of experience in a school. If there is no diversity of experience, an establishment is less likely to succeed. We must take that into account when inspecting schools.

Putting all those elements together, including my catch-all at the end of amendment 304, we have a coherent framework that aligns inspection with the broader values and goals of Scottish education: equity, excellence, wellbeing, professionalism and learner empowerment. Without such alignment, inspection risks becoming a hindrance rather than a help. With the elements that I have described, inspection can become a key driver of change and improvement.

I know that I have gone on a bit, but, as members can probably tell, I feel passionately about the opportunity that an independent chief inspector will bring to transform the culture in our schools. It is about not just changing how we inspect our schools but the purpose of inspection; it is about saying that what matters most in Scottish education is not just that our learners achieve but that they thrive, progress and are taught by professionals who are trusted and respected. That is what amendment 304 enshrines. It describes the standard that is worthy of being aspired to. I therefore commend amendment 304 to the committee.

Some of you will be thinking that I am making up for my lack of attendance last Wednesday night, but I genuinely believe in the elements of amendment 304 and I lay it before the committee for your consideration.

Good evening to the cabinet secretary, officials and others. I have listened carefully to the debate that we have had so far. I will go through amendment 313 in my name, but I take the cabinet secretary’s point—or offer—about my not moving amendment 313 and that we could work together at stage 3.

My amendment 313 follows on the calls in the independent reports of the OECD, Professor Ken Muir and many others that urge us to create an independent inspection body that is focused on improvement and collaboration with the establishment and local authority and which supports excellence in our learning establishments. I think that the amendment does that. It tightly defines the purposes of an inspection and it requires the independent inspection body to be focused on those areas.

Through various reviews and experiences, some of which the cabinet secretary and my colleague Stephen Kerr have spoken to, we have seen that things in schools have gone unnoticed for probably too long. That is why review after review has found the circumstances that have been found. Getting the purpose of inspections right will be absolutely crucial.

18:15  

I have two concerns about the cabinet secretary’s amendment 84. I note that she will not press the amendment, but I will put my concerns on record for the purposes of negotiations at stage 3.

The fairly extensive regulation-making powers that would allow the Government to determine the purpose of inspections could threaten the independence of the inspector, and I will look to discuss the proposal at stage 3. I am concerned about the points raised by the EIS, as alluded to by the cabinet secretary, that individuals, as opposed to establishments, could be inspected. I think that enough has been said on that, because the cabinet secretary has acknowledged the concerns and I do not think that that was the intent. Therefore, I would not expect to see such a proposal in a negotiated amendment at stage 3.

The issues that are outlined in Stephen Kerr’s amendment 304 are critical to the future of Scotland’s education system. The lack of permanence in the teaching profession has meant that more newly qualified teachers have left the profession than before, and we know that the profession is considered to be quite precarious. We also understand that morale in the teaching profession is low, which I think we need to do various things to address. I say to both the cabinet secretary and Stephen Kerr that if laying out that we should inspect on the basis of teacher morale, contract type or ASN support is too much to include in legislation, where should we set out those requirements, so that we can guarantee that those things are considered and systematically and regularly reviewed, and so that we do not reach crisis point? Committee members and those watching the meeting will understand that those things are a significant concern.

I am not sure that it is quite right to include some of the detail in Stephen Kerr’s amendment 304 in the bill, but I understand why he has lodged it. I would be prepared to negotiate at stage 3 to see whether the bill could include something on the purposes of inspection that works for us all. I encourage the Government to consider carefully whether it considers that matters of teacher contracts, permanence, morale and ASN support should be covered in the bill. If not, at some point, the Government will have to be clear to members across the chamber what it is going to do about those key issues.

I call the cabinet secretary to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 84.

In the stage 1 report, the committee recommended that a statement on the purposes of inspection should be included in the bill. I agree on the value of setting out the purposes of inspection, but it is also my view that we need to strike a careful balance to ensure that we do not hinder the flexibility or independence of the chief inspector, which I believe Mr Kerr’s amendment 304 would do. As committee members will know, Professor Muir highlighted the importance of that balance when he gave evidence during stage 1. He advised that the bill should set out only the

“high-level principles in relation to how the inspectorate should operate”,—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 18 September 2024; c 18.]

leaving operational detail to the chief inspector.

As I said earlier, I remain open to further consideration of the topic. I note that Ms Duncan-Glancy raised a pertinent issue in relation to teacher recruitment. She will be mindful of the issues that I raised in response to Mr Kerr about the responsibilities of local government. However, I am also mindful that the inspection plan could set that out as a national focus, for example. The committee will have the opportunity to review the inspection plan and feed into it accordingly.

I intend to press amendment 86, as it is a minor, technical amendment that clarifies how an existing power in section 31 of the bill can be used. That is being done to ensure that the end result is transparent and accessible, with a full definition in one place, rather than a definition being split between the bill, when enacted, and regulations. I will not press my other amendments in the group, and I ask that Mr Kerr and Ms Duncan-Glancy do the same in order to create the opportunity to bring forward a strengthened amendment at stage 3.

Amendment 84, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 30—The inspection function

Amendment 304 not moved.

Amendment 305, in the name of Stephen Kerr, is grouped with amendments 306, 309, 310 and 312. I point out that amendments 309, 310 and 312 are pre-empted by amendment 158, which was previously debated in the group on the independence of the chief inspector.

Amendments 305, 306 and 310 address the crucial matter of the frequency of school inspections. The amendments that I have lodged in the group all stem from one central belief, which is that every learner in Scotland, regardless of their postcode, has the right to attend a school that is regularly and rigorously inspected. It is a matter of equity, quality assurance and public trust.

Amendment 306 introduces a statutory requirement that every education authority establishment be inspected

“at least once within every 3 years”.

The amendment is straightforward but essential, because it is a response to a long-standing and well-documented concern—the absence of regular, consistent inspections across the system, which we have discussed many times in the chamber and in the committee. Audit Scotland has noted in multiple reports that there is no current statutory duty for cyclical inspections of schools in Scotland and that the current system relies on a risk-based and sampling model that leaves large gaps.

As of recent years, only a small percentage of schools have been inspected in a year. Many schools have gone 10 years or more without an inspection at all, and that is not accountability—that is abdication.

On the risk-based approach, it is common for auditors in business and in all sorts of areas of life to focus more on risky subjects than on less risky ones. For starters, would the member not accept that that is quite a good principle? Secondly, can he tell us how many inspections there are at the moment, how many there would be under his plan and whether there is any costing of that?

I will come to the frequency that I am proposing in a second. In answer to the specific issue that John Mason has raised, I understand the importance of risk-based and sampling approaches in inspections. However, the fact of the matter remains that many schools in Scotland have not had inspections for many years, which I do not think is acceptable in our system, because it leaves parents uninformed, teachers unsupported and learners unprotected from poor or stagnant practice.

On the second point that John Mason has raised, I think that a three-year cycle would not be overly burdensome—it would be modest, achievable and proportionate. It would ensure that every school received a visit within a reasonable timeframe without overloading the inspection body. Importantly, the amendment is consistent with the bill’s structure, because section 30 currently allows the chief inspector to determine inspection intervals while also allowing ministers to set minimum frequencies via regulation.

Amendment 306 simply establishes a clear statutory baseline expectation for school inspection once every three years. It does not conflict with the chief inspector’s role, and it provides an essential guarantee for learners and parents.

Amendment 305 is a consequential change to make it clear that the inspector’s discretion to determine the frequency of inspections is subject to that requirement. It does not negate the risk-based approach that John Mason mentioned earlier.

I asked the member about the frequency of inspections. I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that there are about 250 inspections a year now and that his proposal would take that number up to 800, which is three times as many inspections as there are at present. There would be quite a cost to that.

That is a fair point and I accept it as such. There is a famous old adage that, if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

If there is a singular need in our education system right now, it is to provide a friendly critical voice to educationalists and school leaders, to allow them the opportunity for improvement and change. Providing that through inspection is a critical benchmark opportunity. If it is done in the right way, with the right cultural approach—which is the theme that I and many others keep coming back to—it might, as opposed to what happens in other jurisdictions, become an experience and an opportunity that school leaders and teachers look forward to. I know that the cabinet secretary, given her professional experience, is perhaps enjoying that comment rather too much. However, at the end of the day, if someone is leaning in to help and support you with the challenges that you have professionally, that is usually seen as a good thing.

It would be a really positive benefit of the bill if we established an inspections culture whereby school leaders, teachers and other staff felt that they were going to get some benefit—directly, professionally and personally, in their work environment—through an inspection. Although that perhaps sounds to some people’s ears like an ambition that might be beyond reach at the moment, I do not think that it should be. We should be planning a culture change with the new office that we are establishing, which means that that is the appropriate attitude to be brought to every inspection.

Given the figures brought up by my colleague John Mason—the fact that there could be 800 inspections a year—you run the risk of creating an administrative burden, with schools constantly under inspection and nothing getting done.

The evidence that we received from Professor Ken Muir from UWS—you have mentioned him on numerous occasions—was that the current inspection frameworks already provide sufficient flexibility to target resources where they are most needed while maintaining oversight of the system. He is someone who works in education and did a whole report on this and understands how everything works. Perhaps he would think that 800 inspections a year would be a bit much.

I take the point that George Adam is making. I am not dismissing either his point or the point that John Mason raised.

I think that Ken Muir’s position is that the establishment of the independent office of the chief inspector is a great opportunity to address the issues, particularly the cultural issues, around inspection that I am trying to highlight. All of my gathering of personal evidence from listening to Professor Muir has convinced me that we can have a different approach to school inspections in Scotland. I do not quite understand why having a frequency of around every three years would overburden school leaders and teachers.

I do not want to encourage Stephen Kerr to speak any longer—[Laughter.]—but I suggest that he is perhaps arguing for a budgetary decision, which is about capacity, rather than a legislative process.

If there is no baseline in legislation as to how frequently, at a minimum, an inspection should happen, we could slip back into the situation that we have currently, which I do not find acceptable and which I think that Willie Rennie does not find acceptable either.

My amendments are well meaning—if members will forgive the verbosity on the side of their presenter. The idea is to establish a statutory expectation. It is in law that inspections will happen, but they do not happen currently. I have heard Willie Rennie speak about that issue in the chamber in relation to his constituency. It is a real issue that I think we should seek to address in the bill.

I shall press on, convener. I am driving at transparency, which is critical, because nobody wants schools to operate in the fog of uncertainty about when an inspection will come or how frequently they should happen. Neither parents and communities nor school leaders and teachers should be kept guessing.

Amendments 305 and 306 would give structure and predictability to inspections. Together, the amendments aim to professionalise and systematise—I hope that I have not invented that word—the inspection regime by bringing Scotland into alignment with international comparators. In England, Ofsted inspects state schools on a regular cycle, typically every four years; in Wales, it is every three years. I am not proposing anything all that radical; I am proposing that we, in Scotland, follow suit—or, in some respects, because of the lack of consistency and frequency of inspections, catch up.

18:30  

Amendment 310 is an alternative approach to amendments 155 and 158, which would remove the Scottish ministers’ role in inspections entirely, including the provision that the chief inspector

“must comply with any written request”

to carry out an inspection. I think that that debate might have been dealt with in the session that I was not able to attend, last week.

The proposals that are put together are fully consistent with the bill as introduced. The explanatory notes to the bill make it clear that, although there is provision for ministers to set the inspection frequency by regulation—I think that that is correct—the bill does not provide a statutory inspection cycle or follow-up duty. By enshrining a three-year cycle and mandatory follow-up, the amendments would fill a structural gap without undermining the flexibility or judgment of the chief inspector.

There is lots of evidence from other bodies that supports the idea of having a regular inspection, and I urge the committee to consider the amendments together. They are not partisan proposals; they are practical reforms that are rooted in evidence. They are aligned with my concern about the need for a change in culture, and they would benefit teachers, school leaders, learners and parents.

I move amendment 305.

My amendment 309 would place an obligation on ministers to make regulations that specify the intervals at which establishments are to be inspected—the bill as currently drafted states that Scottish ministers “may” specify the intervals. That is incredibly important. As my colleague Stephen Kerr has set out on the record, it is important to continually understand what is happening in our schools and to get a regular picture of what is going on. It is not acceptable that ministers may not set out in regulation the intervals at which establishments should be inspected. That is why my amendment 309 would place an obligation on ministers to do so.

Amendment 312 would require ministers, before drafting such regulations, to consult teachers and

“people who ... represent the interests of ... teachers”.

That is important, because we have seen how inspections can lead to significant stress and concern for teachers and in establishments, which is one of the reasons why, in the debate on the previous group, I said that I was concerned about the Government’s amendment 84. It is crucial that we engage teachers so that they understand when and how often inspections will take place. The regulations must be laid and the sector should be engaged when the regulations are being drafted.

I thank members for their amendments. I appreciate that they are intended to secure the quality of education provision, but I have some concerns about their feasibility and the impact that they would have on the chief inspector and the wider education system. Some of those concerns have been raised by members this evening. John Mason spoke about the dramatic increase in the number of inspections that there would be for every school. If we moved to a three-year cycle, we would be securing roughly 800 inspections per year, and there would be even more once non-school inspections were factored in.

When Stephen Kerr says that he is not proposing anything radical, I tend to disagree. I am also intrigued to know what engagement he has had with the teaching trade unions on the proposal. I am sure that they would have some views. He spoke about the inspection being a friendly critical voice, which is somewhat of a contradiction in terms.

Pam Duncan-Glancy spoke about the stress that is associated with inspection, and I am mindful of the fact that, in addition to being inspected by the chief inspector, schools are inspected by local authorities. If we were to increase the number of inspections by having a three-year cycle, would Stephen Kerr expect local authorities to do likewise? Would schools be in a never-ending cycle of inspection by the chief inspector and the local authority, with perhaps only one year off?

The friendly critical voice is quite a well-known concept in mentoring, coaching and supporting people. We all need a friendly critical voice in our lives, and I am proposing that that should be the cultural context in which the inspections take place. It is intended to be a positive culture, rather than the culture that might exist currently here, or in other places, in respect of school inspections. Does the cabinet secretary accept that that is a valuable role that a school inspector could play?

I accept the member’s point, but I have a concern that brings me back to the point that Ms Duncan-Glancy rightly raised, which is that the current culture in our schools is not necessarily that which the member has alluded to. We need to work to support that culture through reform.

Does the cabinet secretary have any idea what Stephen Kerr’s proposals would cost in financial terms?

No. However, in answer to Mr Mason’s question, I would suggest that, in order to meet the target, there would have to be a recruitment drive to support the requirement for a significant number of additional inspectors. That would be extremely challenging, given the depth of experience that is required for someone to become an inspector. After all, inspectors do not come fully formed; we have to train people, and that will take time.

Inspectors often join the inspectorate directly from school—I am thinking of, for example, headteachers and deputy headteachers. There are constraints on how quickly we can get staff out of school and trained up, which might compromise any approach to the associated challenges that we have already heard about this evening with regard to recruitment in the system more broadly.

There would also be an increased burden on teachers in having to prepare for the inspections; indeed, that is the point that I was trying to make to Mr Kerr. His proposal would add to the unnecessary pressure on schools, which, as we know, are already struggling with capacity issues. I therefore cannot accept Mr Kerr’s amendments and I encourage him not to move them.

The proposal in my amendments is an attempt to address culture transformation, which I think—I hope—we all agree is an important aspect of the bill. If the cabinet secretary thinks that a three-year inspection cycle is too much—although it is not considered so in other parts of the United Kingdom, by the way; I wonder whether she might comment on that—what does she think the frequency of inspections should be? They do not happen every three years at the moment. When she talks about the need for more inspectors and all the rest of it for a three-year cycle, I suggest that the same would be true for the creation of a four or five-year cycle, given the current sporadic nature of inspections.

I am sorry for going on a bit, but it goes back to the point that Pam Duncan-Glancy made: if this is not the place to set the benchmark of frequency, where is? That is my question. What frequency does the cabinet secretary have in mind?

I am coming to that exact point now, Mr Kerr.

I am more open to discussing the intention behind Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments. Given the importance of inspection in the school system, in particular, it is an interesting proposition that ministers should set the frequency of the inspection of schools and other educational institutions, as amendment 309 suggests. That said, there could be potential downsides to it. There is a potential risk that, in focusing on the frequency and the number of inspections, we might lose sight of the trade-off that there might be with quality and appropriate focus. Hypothetically speaking, could the chief inspector, faced with a ministerial stipulation about how frequently schools should be inspected, seek to meet that requirement by carrying out a light-touch, simple inspection model, which might not always be appropriate?

I am also mindful of the fact that Professor Muir made no recommendation on the frequency of inspection in his report and that the associated consultation offered varying views from respondents.

I wonder whether the cabinet secretary sees any value in the purpose behind Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 309, which seeks to set out in statute some kind of floor but with a recognition that, in policy terms, we would be aiming for something more regular. There might be quite a long duration between inspections, but there would still be a floor that it would be a breach of statute to go beyond, even with the recognition that something a bit more regular would be desirable. Would such an approach give flexibility while still providing some underlying reassurance?

Mr Greer raises an important point. Historically, schools were inspected on a generational basis—that is, every seven years—and we have moved away from that model in recent years. However, I am happy to investigate Mr Greer’s point, because I think that it is an important one.

I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move amendment 309. I will discuss the matter further with her and any other members, including Mr Greer and Mr Kerr, with a view to identifying what, if any, mutually acceptable provisions on the frequency of school inspections could be brought back at stage 3.

I ask the cabinet secretary to give me two minutes to talk about the wording of amendment 309, which seeks to replace “may” with “must”. It is already recognised in the bill that regulations could be laid; I am simply suggesting that they should be.

I am happy to investigate that with Ms Duncan-Glancy ahead of stage 3. The point that I was making in response to Mr Greer is that we need to be careful about what we do and that we should engage more broadly with stakeholders. I am mindful of the fact that the teaching trade unions, in particular, will have views on the issue, and it is important that those are heard.

I am also cognisant of the issues associated with stipulating, for example, the number of inspections that should be carried out in a school year, which I think that Mr Greer spoke about and which Mr Kerr addresses in his amendments. We need to be mindful of the fact that, by increasing the number of inspections, we might be decreasing the quality of the information that would be made available.

My amendment 309 is not about stipulating the number of inspections. The bill already suggests—so the Government must, at some point, have already felt—that there may need to be regulations. My suggestion is that, because of what Stephen Kerr has told us and because of the time that can pass between inspections, there should be regulations on the intervals between inspections. The Government has already accepted that there may be a need for such regulations; I am suggesting that ministers should produce them.

It is not in the gift of the minister alone to make affirmative regulations, which is why, I am advised, there is an issue with the word “must”. However, I would be more than happy to engage with the member on the matter ahead of stage 3, so that we can reach a position that we agree on. I agree with the broader point that she has made.

Amendment 312 would add a requirement that ministers must consult registered teachers, as well as

“persons who appear ... to represent the interests of registered teachers”,

before making regulations about the frequency of inspection. Given that ministers would consider it appropriate to consult such persons in any case, I am happy to support the amendment.

I invite Stephen Kerr to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 305.

I am concerned about the cabinet secretary’s latter comments in relation to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 309 and its use of the word “must”. Unless the word “must” is used, there will be no need for ministers to do anything. What the minister has said means that Parliament has no way of creating the circumstances in which a minister must make regulations, and I am a bit worried about that.

I sense that the cabinet secretary wishes to make an intervention.

I have been discussing the matter with officials. The issue pertains to the use of the word “must”, which presumes that Parliament would grant the cabinet secretary or the minister of the day the permission to make the regulations in question. We have to give Parliament the final say in relation to the use of the word “must”. I cannot compel Parliament—Parliament has to decide. That is my difficulty with amendment 309, which is why I said to Ms Duncan-Glancy that I would be happy to work with her on her amendment such that we can all agree on it and Parliament can be given its place in making that decision, because that is not for me to dictate. I hope that that gives the member some reassurance.

I am always reassured when I hear ministers say that they are not seeking power to dictate. [Laughter.] I still harbour a concern, but I am willing to go along—

We seem to be getting lost in relation to the vehicle that would be used. Regulations would be the vehicle that the Scottish Government—or, indeed, the Parliament—would be willingly bound to use. There is agreement on the vehicle that would be used. I think that the Scottish Government is offering to discuss the nature of what that vehicle would look like with regard to the items that have already been addressed, rather than whether a different vehicle would be used.

On the basis of that helpful clarification from Martin Whitfield, I will not press amendment 305, but I will give way to Pam Duncan-Glancy.

I ask Mr Kerr to forgive me for the rather circuitous nature of my questioning. The bill currently says that ministers “may” make regulations on inspection intervals. I am not sure that the point is to do with the vehicle. My amendment 309 seeks to say that the Government should lay such regulations. I wonder whether Mr Kerr is as curious as I am about whether there are any other examples in legislation of its being stated that the Government must lay regulations, because I feel that there might be.

18:45  

Ms Duncan-Glancy knows me only too well; the word curious is probably one of many words that might be applied to me. I am curious about what the frequency of inspection would be. I understand the point that Martin Whitfield made, but I am concerned that we will leave this debate without being entirely clear about what we are going to end up with.

I am seeking a frequency of inspection that is not out of line with other parts of the United Kingdom. We have a situation in Scotland where our regime of inspections has, frankly, pretty much collapsed under Education Scotland. There were schools that went a decade without any inspection—and not just a few. I do not think that that is fair.

If a school is inspected any less often than every three or four years, a whole cohort of young people will go through an institution where there might be issues that could be rectified and where there are cultural issues that might be transformative and they will have been completely lost. The public would, rightly, be concerned to hear that we do not have such a regime in place or the number of inspectors that are required to do that properly in Scotland’s schools.

The concern that the cabinet secretary expressed about the chief inspector using a light-touch model is pretty much what happens currently, which is that—and I do not wish to be disparaging—inspections happen once in every blue moon.

Will the member take an intervention?

Of course.

The member will recall that there is already stipulation in the legislation for the inspection plan to set out

“the period to which the plan applies”

and

“the frequency with which different types of relevant educational establishments, other than excepted establishments, will be inspected”.

Frequency is already covered in the bill, but it is under the power of the chief inspector, who will stipulate it in the inspection plan, which will then be laid in Parliament, and the education committee will be able to interrogate that plan. As I understand it, that power currently rests with the chief inspector, not with ministers. Is the member content to give that power to ministers? Does he not trust the chief inspector to stipulate the frequency of school inspections?

The cabinet secretary knows full well that I have great expectations about the trustworthiness of the chief inspector. So much hangs on the individual who will be the chief inspector, the culture that they will operate in their broader remit and how they will use their independence to the best effect.

However, I have concerns on behalf of the chief inspector; I am concerned that, in a flight of fancy, he might agree that we should do inspections every three years, given that we are being told that we will not be able to do them every three years because there will not be enough of anything to provide such an inspection regime, which would be the same as what is already provided in other parts of the United Kingdom. That concerns me.

I cannot speak for the committee, because I am not a member of it, but I cannot be the only one who is concerned. I am sure that members of the committee must be concerned to hear that we will not be able to have a more regular and cyclical approach to inspections because we do not have enough inspectors, or because we cannot—

There is nothing to preclude the chief inspector from stipulating that in the inspection plan. That is already provided for in the bill. The matter rests with the chief inspector. I understand the member’s point, which is that he wants to give that power to ministers and take it away from the chief inspector. It is arguable that doing so weakens the strength of the committee in interrogating the inspection plan, because the bill is currently drafted to allow for that.

That is not my argument. Amendment 306 lays in statute what the frequency of inspections would be; I am not leaving it up to ministers or anybody else. I still want to put it in the bill, because that way it commands the attention of all concerned.

As I said, I am grateful to colleagues who have intervened to point out the arithmetic of the number of inspections, but we have heard that we do not have inspectors and that we do not have the strength and depth to be able to perform those inspections on anything like the routine basis that they are done in England, for example. I do not want Scottish schools—

Will you take an intervention?

Of course.

I just had a wee look at what the process is in England. Apparently, the three-year cycle is a policy aspiration. If a school is rated outstanding, it is inspected every four to five years, a good school gets done every four years and there is full reinspection within 30 months if a school requires improvement. That is a good idea.

However, the whole point is that it does not actually happen every three years. It would probably work out similarly to the system that we have, in which we ensure that, when there is an issue, there is a process—we do the inspection and the school gets the support that is needed. That is almost exactly the same, because outstanding schools and good schools will be the ones that are—

George Adam’s intervention is very helpful, because it adds weight to my concerns about frequency. Even an outstanding school in England is inspected every four to five years.

Five years—not three.

Okay, five years—great. Our problem is that—[Interruption.].

We have done very well—I think that this is our fourth session, and most people have spoken through the chair. If we can continue with that, we will conduct our business in an orderly manner. Does Mr Kerr want to give way to Mr Adam?

I am happy to.

We are going round in circles, so I will just leave it at that.

I think that I have explained my concern about what we have heard in the consideration of this section of the bill about the capacity, the resources and the idea of regular inspections. I believe that the latter are fundamental to the whole area of cultural change and that they also support the profession and school leaders and shed true light on what is happening in our schools for the benefit of learners and their parents.

I will withdraw the amendments in my name on the basis that there might be the possibility—as I think that I heard—that we can talk in detail about the issue before stage 3.

Amendment 305, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 155 and 156 not moved.

Amendment 157, in the name of Miles Briggs, is grouped with amendments 166, 315, 178 and 348. I call Miles Briggs to move amendment 157 and to speak to all amendments in the group.

Good evening, cabinet secretary and colleagues. I will speak to amendments 157, 166 and 178. As we have heard throughout the committee’s deliberations, culture change is not easy to legislate for. In the area of child protection, we need to look to strengthen the specific safeguarding child protection responsibilities and place those into inspections. I have lodged these probing amendments to consider how we can provide for the complaints function and improve HMIE’s inspection plans in relation to it.

I have developed the set of amendments as part of an ask that is contained in the on-going public petition PE1979, on whistleblowing and safeguarding. I pay tribute to the petitioners Alison Dickie, Bill Cook, Christine Scott and Neil McLennan for their on-going campaigns and important work in that area. The petition, in short—as the committee will be pleased to hear—calls for the establishment of an independent national whistleblowing officer for education and children’s services. Although the proposal does not sit comfortably as part of the bill, I want to probe how the new inspectorate could take forward a new function or, indeed, how Parliament could create such a role at stage 3.

I welcome the amendments in the name of my colleague Stephen Kerr in this group, too. I believe that there is a clear gap in safeguarding and child protection responsibilities as part of a school inspection, and that is what has motivated the amendments. If we are to ensure that safeguarding and child protection are at the heart of any educational establishment, we need to look towards how that is being measured and taken into account. Specifically, establishing a complaint function would allow for a mechanism whereby the chief inspector could have confidence and means to hear from parents, carers, teachers and other persons who want to report concerns about any relevant educational establishment. Those concerns would be recorded and then used to inform HMIE’s inspection plans.

As members know, I have tried throughout the stage 2 process to embed parent and carer voices in the matter of school inspections and in the bill. I believe that we need additional measures to take those voices into account.

I am glad that the member is pushing the issue on to the debate and that he said that these are probing amendments. I have a lot of sympathy for what he is proposing.

Part of my concern about the operational aspect is the idea that the inspectorate would have to engage with every complaint that is received. I am sure that we have all had complaints in our email inboxes. I have had someone complaining about a school because the school was helping to deliver vaccinations to children and the individual who complained thought that the vaccinations included 5G chips from Bill Gates. Not every complaint is equal, so there needs to be some flexibility to ensure that spurious complaints can be dismissed, so that, if we assign such responsibility to the inspectorate, its focus can be dedicated entirely to serious complaints, although I agree that there is a gap in the system around addressing those.

I agree that it is not about every single complaint being investigated. The petitioners would certainly point out serious complaints that have not been investigated. As an Edinburgh MSP, I am concerned about Edinburgh schools, but this is not just an Edinburgh issue—it is an issue across Scotland.

I hope that, at stage 3, there will be a workable way of giving the inspectorate a new opportunity to hear concerns and decide which ones it should take forward under the complaints procedure. That is why I have tried to keep the amendments open for the inspectorate to be able to do that. I am happy to hear the cabinet secretary’s view on the matter. The petitioners have a specific ask, and the amendments are just one step towards improving the whistleblowing and safeguarding culture in Scotland.

I move amendment 157.

I am sorry that the committee has to listen to me again, but it just so happens that the amendments that have come up are in my name.

I agree with what Ross Greer said. It is not about dealing with complaints; it is about raising serious concerns—specifically, concerns that rest within the public interest remit in the statutory definition of whistleblowing.

It is important that I declare an interest. I have a long-standing connection with WhistleblowersUK, which is a not-for-profit organisation that supports whistleblowers. It is also a campaigning group that seeks to change the law to provide proper protections for whistleblowers. The issue has been a long-term interest of mine, because I genuinely believe that whistleblowers can be a positive antidote to some of the toxicity that can arise in closed cultures.

Amendments 315 and 348 are not merely about improving administrative processes; they are also about sending a powerful message about culture, trust and integrity in our schools and educational bodies. We must legislate not only for structures but for values. Among those values must be the protection of truth-telling, the safety of those who speak up and the accountability of institutions to those they serve. Amendments 315 and 348 seek to provide those values.

The amendments are not intended to be small bureaucratic changes. They are about encouraging moral courage, institutional integrity and the creation of a culture in which staff at all levels feel safe to speak up when they see that something is wrong and that it is in the public interest that they do so.

To be clear, whistleblowing saves systems from failure. It is not a nuisance that is to be tolerated and it is not disloyalty. It is the front-line defence of standards and safety. It means protecting the public interest and ensuring that the best interests of pupils, parents and the wider public are safeguarded at all times. That is particularly vital in education, and I believe that the cabinet secretary appreciates that. Schools are closed environments, power is hierarchical—that is particularly true in an educational establishment—and cultures can and do become toxic. When issues such as mismanagement, safeguarding failures, curriculum malpractice and the bullying of staff or pupils arise, the instinct too often, sadly, is to deny, deflect or retaliate.

In recent years, we have seen, tragically and repeatedly, what happens when staff feel that they cannot speak up. Across the public sector, we have seen whistleblowers suffer for doing the right thing. Careers have been ended, reputations have been shattered, and isolation, stress and even mental breakdown have followed. In many cases, the underlying issues were eventually proven to be real. We will all have had constituency casework that relates to the examples that I am citing.

19:00  

The education sector is no different. Teachers, support staff and senior leaders across Scotland have shared—often anonymously—stories of having tried to raise concerns about child safety, exam integrity and leadership failures, only to be warned off, ignored or subject to disciplinary action. The Scottish Parliament has an opportunity in the bill to act to prevent that culture from persisting. We must, united, send a message that whistleblowing is not a betrayal but is a form of professional leadership. It is an expression of ethical responsibility and an act of service in defence of the public interest.

The amendments are modelled in part on the independent national whistleblowing officer, or INWO, role that was established in the national health service in Scotland in 2021. That role provides a clear, safe and structured route for NHS staff to raise concerns about wrongdoing or malpractice in their workplace. It guarantees that those concerns will be treated with seriousness, confidentiality and fairness, and it sits outside the management hierarchy.

Why should teachers, classroom assistants, early years workers and college lecturers be afforded any less protection? The argument for parity is overwhelming. The stakes in education are no less high than in health. Learner safety, wellbeing and outcomes depend on the honesty and responsiveness of institutions. The public trust that is placed in our schools is immense. When that trust is breached, the system must not silence or sideline those who speak up; it must embrace them. For the sake of pupils, for the peace of mind of parents and for the reputation of public education as a whole, we must protect the right to speak up in the public interest.

It is right that I mention the psychological and career toll that unprotected whistleblowing can take. Too many professionals who have spoken up have found themselves subtly or not so subtly punished—excluded from promotion, subject to hostile appraisals, moved between schools or stripped of informal support. Often, their colleagues fall silent for fear of guilt by association. Whistleblowing, in those instances, is a lonely and painful road. It should not be so. If the Scottish education system is to retain talented and ethical professionals, it must ensure that raising a concern does not become a career-ending decision. My amendments embed that principle.

My intention in the amendments is to create a whistleblowing framework, which is a practical and powerful way to reassure potential whistleblowers that the listening is real and to give every professional a route to be heard, even when their line management has failed them.

The approach is fully consistent with the direction of travel in Scottish public life. The whistleblowing officer role in the NHS, which I mentioned, was created following decades of failure in healthcare, with staff knowing about risks but feeling unable to speak. The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, under whose auspices the INWO sits, has made it clear that every sector should have whistleblowing protections that are tailored to the sector’s structures and culture, and my amendments seek to say loudly that it is time for education to follow.

I will expand on something that Ross Greer said earlier. Some people might say that we already have grievance procedures and staff complaint schemes. I would argue that those are not enough, because grievance procedures are internal and subject to management discretion. They are often used against whistleblowers. They do not have the independence, transparency or moral authority that whistleblowing frameworks require.

Other people might ask whether a whistleblowing framework will encourage vexatious complaints, but experience shows otherwise. Where whistleblowing systems are well designed, vexatiousness is rare, and it can be identified and addressed. The answer to misuse is not to deny use. The answer to due process is not silence.

Some may worry about workload or bureaucracy. Again, the NHS model shows that whistleblowing offices can operate efficiently when there are clear thresholds, defined procedures and proportionate oversight. They do not need to be large or costly; they need to be credible and trusted.

The moral case to support the amendments is clear. The policy precedent in the NHS is strong and the bill is the legislative vehicle to bring in what the amendments propose. We must now act. The amendments are not just about good governance; they are statements of values. They say to every teacher, learning assistant and administrator, “If you see something wrong, we want you to tell us. We will listen. We will protect you. We will act.” That is the message that the amendments send and the infrastructure that amendment 348 would provide. Together, the amendments offer Scotland a national education system that is open, honest and accountable from the inside out.

I have a lot of sympathy for Mr Kerr’s amendment 315. Amendment 348, on the requirement to report, concerns me more, given that I hope—as I think that we would all hope—that, at least in some years, a relatively small number of complaints would be made via the proposed process. My worry is that, when we are talking about a small number of complaints that would have to be coalesced into a published report, the requirements on reporting that are in the amendment would be hard to reconcile with a need to make sure that there is absolute anonymity for whistleblowers and no prospect of jigsaw identification.

I understand and respect those concerns. However, having transparency about the fact that whistleblowers were going to the officer concerned would be an important part of encouraging and supporting a culture of transformation with regard to whistleblowing. Currently, as I know that Ross Greer is fully aware, people have a negative connotation of whistleblowing. As legislators and public servants who have an interest in reforming Scotland’s public services across the board, we should want to try to change the perceived culture that exists within organisations, so that people feel empowered to discretely, confidentially and anonymously—to begin with, perhaps—speak up.

In comparison with my amendments on inspection, with these amendments I am not trying to be overprescriptive about how whistleblowing would work. However, it is important that it works. I invite the committee to support my amendments. The cost of silence is too high and the moral imperative that I mentioned earlier is too strong. We are talking about the public interest. This is too important not to deal with now, and the opportunity to do the right thing is sitting right in front of us with these amendments.

I will not take up too much of the committee’s time. As Stephen Kerr knows well, I have long been an advocate of whistleblowing. However, I have concerns about the amendments. He seems to be suggesting in the amendments that the chief inspector should become a prescribed person. That would cause concerns if the complaint were to be about an inspection.

Where the right criteria are met, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland is available to young people, parents and others as a prescribed person for the purposes of whistleblowing. That relates to health and safety and would cover a significant number of areas of concern, along with any criminal acts, fraud or other matters.

To echo Ross Greer’s comments, it is an interesting area to examine, but I am not sure that the bill is the right vehicle to address it, given the different role of the chief inspector, at a statutory level, and the requirements of the office. I have no problem with having a confidential means for parents to feed into an inspection; that would be beneficial. I know that others—

Will the member give way?

I am happy to do so.

This is probably going to give you a clue as to how I wish to proceed with the amendments, but where the actual function sits could be the subject of further discussion. To be frank, I am not saying that what is written down in the amendments is the final total of the consideration that might be given to the office of whistleblower.

That is the critical thing. I think that it is very important that this be a clearly designated office. I come back to the old saying about something doing what it says on the tin. If it says on the tin that this is the office of the whistleblower, whistleblowers ought to feel confident, even if it has another title. I accept all of that, and I am open to considering whatever changes might be necessary to provide the basis for legitimising whistleblowing and to make it a means of supporting cultural change in education.

With that assurance, I have nothing further to add. I see where the member is going, and I am grateful.

I call the cabinet secretary.

I welcome the intention behind the amendments lodged by Mr Briggs and Mr Kerr. I understand that the petition that Mr Briggs has alluded to is still under consideration by the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, so I will make no further comment on the specifics.

However, I make it clear that I understand that the existing complaints processes can be perceived as fragmented and complex by complainants. I think that that was the point that Mr Briggs was making, and we should look at what more can be done in that area. Therefore, I propose today to discuss with COSLA and ADES through the recently established education and childcare assurance board—so, outwith the legislative process—the range of issues that have been highlighted in members’ contributions. It would also be pertinent to involve wider stakeholders, such as the General Teaching Council for Scotland, as necessary.

I am more than happy to engage with the committee on that work, if members agree to the proposition. The discussions might lead us to considering proposals such as those put forward by Mr Kerr and Mr Briggs. However, I am not clear at this point that those are appropriate functions for the chief inspector to take on.

I fully respect the point that the petition that I have mentioned is still live, but will the potential discussions that the cabinet secretary has referred to include the establishment of what the petitioners have been seeking—that is, an independent national whistleblowing officer not just for education but for wider children’s services in Scotland? That is currently missing, and I point out that we have moved to provide such a function for health services, for example. Is that something that the Government would consider?

I give the member the reassurance that I am more than happy to have those discussions with COSLA and ADES and to give the committee a fulsome update on the progress being made on those points.

It is important to set out that, as members will be aware, there are clear and very established routes for raising and escalating complaints and concerns within our education system, including through the General Teaching Council for Scotland. I am particularly concerned that layering additional functions on to the chief inspector’s role would risk further complication, which would not be helpful to those with concerns, and would also draw the chief inspector away from their core role in the system.

Does the cabinet secretary not accept, though, that currently there are cultural barriers to people speaking up and reporting or raising concerns, and that the existing procedures have, when used, resulted in individuals feeling that they have effectively committed a career-ending act by speaking up? That reinforces the need for—as Miles Briggs said, and as I said in my own remarks—a body that individuals with genuinely held concerns can approach and seek advice from.

Mr Kerr and I have discussed this privately, and I share some of his concerns about the cultural challenges in that respect in our education system. I would not want to apply this sort of thing in any blanket way across the whole school or education system; it will all depend on the school setting, for example, and the people involved. However, I take the member’s general point about the challenges in this space.

I have a number of challenges with regard to amendment 315, which sets out the chief inspector’s whistleblowing function. First of all, it would not fall within the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence, which would risk the bill itself being unable to become law. The scope of the amendment would also risk cutting across the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman’s statutory remit, which, in broad terms, relates to maladministration and service failure.

Mr Briggs’s amendment 166 would require the office of the chief inspector to investigate complaints. Again, it is important to note that there are already established routes for parents, teachers and others who want to raise concerns about a child’s education provision. The delivery of education and the duty to secure improvement are primarily the responsibility of councils.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that the word “complaints” probably does not fully do justice to the issues that we are discussing? They are not so much individuals who are complaining as they are individuals who have seen something that they perceive to be against the public interest, which they wish to highlight but find in doing so that the organisation closes in on them due to its culture.

19:15  

I think that the cabinet secretary understands what I am saying. Using the word “complaints” makes it sound like the issue that Ross Greer raised. We are not talking about people who are of a complaining disposition or who are in that space. We are talking about people who have heard or witnessed something that has led them to believe that they should do something as a professional because it would be against the public interest not to do so.

I understand the member’s point. We have discussed the issue, but one person’s complaint can be another person’s whistleblowing incident. How we identify and determine what might constitute a whistleblowing incident is a challenge, but I take the member’s point—

That underpins the importance of what we have in place for NHS Scotland, where we have an independent whistleblower’s office. The people who work in that setting are people who have the experience and professionalism to be able to make an initial judgment based on what they hear, hence the importance of establishing a whistleblowing office.

I accept what the cabinet secretary says about where the office sits, but the bill is still an opportunity to address the issue, and the longer we put it off, the harder it becomes. As we saw with NHS Scotland and health boards, organisations will close ranks to ensure that the process of establishing such an office takes as long as possible.

I will not comment on responsibilities that fall outwith my portfolio, but I take the member’s point on the approach that has been taken in the NHS. My point was about the existing systems, which are important. Members will be well acquainted with the ombudsman. If parents are not content with taking that approach, they can raise with ministers their concerns that a local authority or other responsible body for a school has failed to carry out its statutory duties. If ministers are satisfied that there has been a failure, they can intervene or order the local authority or school to deliver on their duties.

Given the broad framing of the chief inspector’s proposed additional complaints and whistleblowing functions, significant work would need to be undertaken to scope the likely costs of staffing and other resourcing implications, but we anticipate that the costs for both could be substantial. Although I cannot specify the costs at this point, I can say with some certainty that taking on such functions would draw the chief inspector’s focus away from where I firmly believe that it needs to be, which is inspecting the quality of education and using their expertise and judgment to support improvement.

I hope that members agree that the complaints and whistleblowing functions that Mr Briggs and Mr Kerr suggest are not necessarily appropriate for the chief inspector and likely to have significant resource requirements. Any changes to the processes that exist for raising concerns and the implications of those for children and young people would need to be properly considered and consulted on.

More broadly, my commitment to progress discussion with COSLA, ADES and others and to keep the committee updated on that will, I hope, give members some reassurance that, although I cannot support the amendments, I understand and am cognisant of their underpinning concerns. If amendment 157 is pressed and the other amendments in the group are moved, I ask members to vote against them.

I appreciate what the cabinet secretary has said and look forward to hearing about those conversations.

I put on record my hope that the petition will be heard—we will see how the Government responds to it. More importantly, some timescale for that is needed because, given the pace at which the Government wants the bill to be voted on and passed, the petition will not be part of that process. The petition has been sitting unaddressed for the duration of this parliamentary session, but I hope that it is progressed before the election so that a new organisation can be created or further inspection changes can take place.

I will not press amendment 157 or move my other amendments in the group.

Amendment 157, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 306 and 307 not moved.

This is an appropriate point to stop for a comfort break. I suspend the meeting for about 10 minutes.

19:20 Meeting suspended.  

19:31 On resuming—  

Welcome back. Amendment 308, in the name of Willie Rennie, is grouped with amendments 24, 165, 88, 332, 26 and 209. Amendment 88, if agreed to, will pre-empt amendment 322, which is in the group on chief inspector: duties when exercising functions.

My amendments in this group are about safeguarding and the role of the inspectorate in checking the systems of, primarily, local authorities for identifying safeguarding issues and dealing with those appropriately.

The GTCS has a responsibility, but that is only for teachers, not other staff in schools. Also, the GTCS does not have responsibility for the system; its responsibility relates only to an individual’s fitness to teach. There is therefore a vacuum—a space—which has been identified, apparently, by Neil McLennan and his colleagues, who have campaigned on the issue.

I have had several discussions with the GTCS. It recognises the issue but also recognises the limitations on its powers, because it is funded by individual teachers in relation to fitness to teach and the regulation of teachers, not in relation to the wider system.

I have therefore sought in my amendments in this group to give responsibility to the chief inspector to check local authorities, primarily, on their inspection processes to ensure that the local authorities deal appropriately with safeguarding and its systems, not just in relation to teaching staff but for other staff as well. Amendment 308 would add a requirement for inspections to include a look at safeguarding arrangements. Amendment 332 sets out that the inspection plan would have to consider how inspections would be used to monitor safeguarding.

I agree with the principle behind all the amendments in the group. My only concern is that, although amendment 308 talks about safeguarding requirements in general, others in the group—amendment 332, the cabinet secretary’s amendment 88 and Miles Briggs’s amendments—talk specifically about children and young people. Although I agree that specific arrangements are needed for children and young people, a wider safeguarding responsibility exists, particularly when it comes to vulnerable adults.

I should declare at this point that I have membership of the protecting vulnerable groups scheme.

If we agree to the principle of the amendments, is there perhaps a way to come back at stage 3 to make it clear that there are specific safeguarding duties in relation to children and young people but there are also wider safeguarding responsibilities towards everyone who is involved in or on the premises of an educational establishment—in particular, vulnerable adults?

That is a very fair point, and we should consider it in the discussions that I hope that the cabinet secretary will be prepared to have.

I move amendment 308.

First, I put on record Liz Smith’s apologies, as she is unable to attend this evening’s session and was also unable to attend this morning.

Amendment 24, in her name, is an important amendment that I support, especially as a Lothian MSP. Members will recall the tragic incident that occurred in April 2014, when Keane Wallis-Bennett died while changing for a physical education class, as a result of a prefabricated wall collapsing at Liberton high school here in the capital. That was despite repeated warnings about the instability of the wall for several months before the fatal accident.

We all understand that there are situations when freak accidents—storms, for example—can cause unforeseen damage to a school building. That happened at Oxgangs primary school in 2016, when a cavity leaf wall collapsed. Notwithstanding that, there are other situations that naturally give parents and carers cause for concern.

In 2018, my colleague Liz Smith made a freedom of information request to all 32 local authorities, which brought out that 150 safety incidents had been reported in our schools. Since then, we have had the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete situation in schools, including the worrying incident at Queen Victoria school in Dunblane.

To be fair to the Scottish Government, it has put in place measures to ensure that there are additional checks on school buildings. I suggest, however, that parent, pupil and teacher anxiety remains, especially in areas where some aspects of poor school estate still exist. I fully appreciate that local authorities have a statutory obligation to carry out building inspections of their school estate. That is right and proper, as Willie Rennie has outlined. It means that, for each school, there is certification of safety, or, if there are issues, the relevant local authority is obliged to take urgent action. In the independent sector, that would apply to the board of governors.

The key thing is to ensure that there is full transparency when it comes to the physical school estate and school campus. Through her amendment 24, Liz Smith suggests that, when the results of the usual school inspection are published, currently by Education Scotland, accompanying certification should be signed off by an independent qualified building engineer professional to prove that the school campus has been declared—

Will the member take an intervention?

Yes.

I do not know whether Miles Briggs will be able to answer this in Liz Smith’s absence, but health and safety is not a devolved matter, so how would that work in relation to the bill? I totally understand what you are saying, but that is my query.

That goes back to Willie Rennie’s point about the local authority’s responsibility around inspection. Through the wording of the amendment—I wait to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say on it—we could look towards that documentation being included. To go back to my earlier point, it is about transparency, so that we can see whether any concerns have been raised. I do not think that it should take a freedom of information request to find out that there have been 150 concerning incidents—as was the case back in 2018—and to get full transparency.

I point out that, although health and safety is not devolved, building standards and building safety are. As much as I hope that the amendments are not moved at this stage, because there is still more work to do, I sympathise with their principle, particularly because of an incident a few years ago in the East Dunbartonshire Council area, when there were gas leaks in schools. It then emerged that the council could not locate the gas certificates for most of the primary schools in its estate.

There is a need for something more rigorous in the process to ensure that the safety of our school buildings is checked, although perhaps not through the mechanism that is proposed.

I take on board those points. The amendments would expand the new inspectorate regime to include what people want, which should be welcome. We know that there are on-going issues with the school estate, with RAAC being one of those issues. It is welcome that the vast majority of schools have now, I think, corrected that, but parents will want to be confident that there is an on-going inspection regime and that the certificates, which are sometimes provided by private companies, will not be lost, because they will be asked for when an inspection takes place.

I take the member’s point, and given my colleague Stephen Kerr’s point about when inspections take place, there might be a different or better framework for making that documentation available from local authorities. I understand that, and I am sure that Liz Smith will be open to discussing and developing that further.

As with Liz Smith’s amendments, amendments 165 and 209 in my name are probing amendments to consider the opportunity to explore how we can improve child protection and safeguarding in educational establishments. Given what the cabinet secretary has said, I do not intend to move them.

I call the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 88 and other amendments in the group.

I welcome the intention behind amendments 308, 165 and 332, which look to address recent concerns regarding child protection and safeguarding processes in educational establishments and public bodies. Members will know that protecting children from harm is a key priority for the Government.

I want to talk to the existing practice. His Majesty’s inspectors currently evaluate and report on quality and improvement in Scottish education using the “How good is our school?” framework, or HGIOS, which specifically includes child protection and safeguarding as a quality indicator. If inspectors are concerned about weaknesses in any establishment’s approach to safeguarding, they can return to further evaluate the processes and determine whether that establishment has made improvements. In addition, as we have already discussed in relation to a previous group of amendments, ministers currently have the ability to request a special inspection when there are specific concerns, and that should be the case in the future.

Amendment 88, which I have lodged, looks to give an assurance to stakeholders and the wider system—I think that that is the point that Mr Greer has made—regarding the existing practice for inspecting child protection and safeguarding processes by providing in legislation that the chief inspector must have regard to the need for adequate safeguarding and child protection arrangements in the exercise of all their functions.

As inspectors are not on the ground except when carrying out an inspection, it appears to me that they are not well placed to provide any on-going oversight. The intention of my amendment is therefore not to give the chief inspector oversight of such arrangements, as would appear to be the case in Mr Briggs’s amendment 165, which provides that inspectors would

“oversee the enforcement of child protection and safeguarding measures”.

Notably, as is currently the case in Education Scotland, the chief inspector will have strong links with other audit bodies and inspectorates, and I believe in the importance of listening to children and young people and ensuring that those who deliver education understand the impact that it has. My amendment 88 looks to address both those points, and I strongly encourage all members to support it.

I hope that that clarifies the inspectorate’s current role and that which the chief inspector will continue to have once the post is established, if my amendment is supported. In that context, I do not believe that amendments 308, 165 and 332 are strictly necessary.

More broadly, I note that the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland has indicated support for my amendment in preference to amendments 308 and 332. The commissioner has also indicated that they wish amendment 88 to be strengthened with reference to education authorities. I am pleased to be able to reassure the commissioner that the definition of relevant educational establishments in section 31(1) of the bill already includes education authorities as well as schools and others.

I appreciate that Ms Smith is not here this evening, so I will direct my commentary with regard to amendment 24, on the inspection of school building safety documentation, to Mr Briggs. I believe that the amendment goes beyond the remit of education inspection, although I accept some of the points and the rationale behind what he has said this evening.

HM inspectors are education professionals and would not necessarily have the experience or qualifications to assess the adequacy of building safety documentation. It is also worth noting that, as another member mentioned, health and safety is not devolved to the Scottish Parliament. When a local authority does not comply with regulations, it is for the health and safety executive to determine the severity of that breach and what enforcement action is appropriate. Therefore, I am not able to support those amendments.

I just caught the cabinet secretary at the end there. The matter goes back to conversations that the committee had following the tragedy at Liberton high school. It was then quite clear that, with regard to parliamentary scrutiny, there had to be an opportunity to at least review where that documentation is being held. My colleague Ross Greer referred to issues in another council area. Will the cabinet secretary be open—perhaps not as part of the bill—to consider what that will look like?

Having been a member of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, I have specific concerns that a similar situation exists for social housing, specifically with regard to RAAC. However, I think that most people would expect that documentation to be held and viewed when inspections take place in our school estate. I do not know whether the cabinet secretary could at least review the matter, given that local authorities are the ones that currently hold that documentation. I have not seen a practice in place to provide public transparency on that.

I thank Miles Briggs for his interest in that point. He might recall that, in late August or early September 2023, not long after I was appointed, we had issues in relation to RAAC and the proposed closure of a number of buildings. It was an issue across the United Kingdom but, in Scotland, we worked at pace with the Scottish heads of property services—SHOPS—network to identify affected schools, provide reassurance and seek information from local authorities.

19:45  

There are broader issues in relation to school buildings and who owns the documentation that Miles Briggs spoke about. We currently understand that that is local authorities but, sometimes, there can be attention at national level when there are very challenging incidents. RAAC is the example that Miles Briggs has provided and that I have experience of, but there have been much more challenging incidents in recent years, as he alluded to. I would be more than happy to speak to officials and to Miles Briggs on how we might be able to address some of the concerns that he has raised today, although I do not think that that is addressed by the bill that we are discussing this evening.

I call Willie Rennie to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 308.

I accept what the minister has said about the amendments being strictly necessary—I think that those were the words that she used. However, sufficiently senior people in the education world have concerns that the issue is not getting sufficient focus from the inspectorate just now. Although it is possible to evaluate safeguarding, that is not necessarily happening consistently enough to satisfy those individuals.

Perhaps we do not have to put it into the bill, but I hope that the cabinet secretary takes away the fact that there needs to be a discussion with the inspectorate about the role that it plays in safeguarding and the resource and priority that it gives to safeguarding in inspections. After all, the people who have raised those concerns are not insignificant. They are concerned that local authority systems—not at the child protection level but at the level below—are not sufficiently robust. I hope that the cabinet secretary takes away the fact that there are concerns out there and that priorities need to change.

I very much take on board Mr Rennie’s points. I alluded to the situation as it stands, but he makes substantive points. I note that there will be a responsibility for the committee to respond to inspection reports, the laying of which will be part of the chief inspector’s role. That will be an opportunity for members of the committee to challenge and provide feedback in regard to the evaluation of safeguarding and a variety of areas in the inspection report more broadly that might feel pertinent. Therefore, there will be an opportunity for MSPs to feed into that and to challenge it, which is important. However, I will take away the points that Mr Rennie has made today, because I accept the challenge in relation to the issues that he has raised.

I will conclude on that point. I do not intend to press or move my amendments.

Amendment 308, by agreement, withdrawn.

I remind members that, if amendment 158, in the name of Sue Webber, is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 309, 310, 159, 311, 85 or 312, due to pre-emptions.

Amendments 158, 309, 310, 159, 311 and 85 not moved.

Amendment 312 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to.

Amendment 160 not moved.

Section 30, as amended, agreed to.

After section 30

Amendments 24 and 313 not moved.

Section 31—Meaning of “relevant educational establishment” and “excepted establishment”

Amendment 161 not moved.

I remind members that, if amendment 162, in the name of Sue Webber, is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 86 or 314, due to pre-emption.

Amendment 162 not moved.

Amendment 86 moved—[Jenny Gilruth]—and agreed to.

Amendment 314 not moved.

Section 31, as amended, agreed to.

Section 32 agreed to.

Section 33—The advisory function

Amendments 163 and 164 not moved.

Section 33 agreed to.

After section 33

Amendment 87, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 317, 318, 169 and 350.

Amendment 87 would require the chief inspector to have regard to the desirability of working in collaboration with others where appropriate. I lodged the amendment to further strengthen effective communication and collaboration between national bodies and to support the chief inspector to work with others.

I agree with what I understand to be the intention of Mr Briggs’s and Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments, and it is clear that we have consensus on the critical role of collaborative working. However, I do not believe that the specificity provided by Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments is either necessary or appropriate.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 317 requires the chief inspector to collaborate with Education Scotland. Amendment 87 will encompass that collaboration and further require the chief inspector to collaborate with other bodies where appropriate.

Amendment 87 says:

“The Chief Inspector must have regard to the desirability of working in collaboration”

whereas amendment 317 says that they should work in collaboration. I take the point about specificity and referring to the named organisation. However, there is a slight difference in the amendments.

I take the member’s point that there is a slight difference, but amendment 350 places a corresponding duty on Education Scotland to collaborate with the chief inspector. We discussed some of that last week, but in respect of both amendments, it is relevant that Education Scotland is an executive agency of Scottish ministers. As I have already highlighted in discussions on earlier groups, statutory duties cannot be conferred on such agencies, because they do not have a legal personality separate from that of Scottish ministers. In legal terms, strictly speaking, there is nothing on which that duty would operate.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 318 permits the chief inspector to work with educational establishments and local authorities to co-ordinate support for young people and their parents. That amendment extends the remit of the chief inspector significantly beyond inspecting to support improvement and into the realm of co-ordinating support, including for individuals and their parents. As well as having a significant resourcing implication, it is not at all clear how it would operate with the primary responsibilities of local councils, and it would risk causing confusion. On that basis, I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move those amendments.

On the intention behind amendment 318, the cabinet secretary will say that this is the responsibility of local authorities or schools, and it is not something that the cabinet secretary or the Scottish Government can do something about. Indeed, everyone around the table today has heard that quite a bit. The amendment therefore attempts to provide some sort of oversight so that somebody is at least looking at those establishments and asking them to work together for the improvement of education across Scotland.

I accept what the member has just said, and I recognise the challenge. I am just not sure that we get to that place via an amendment such as amendment 318, which could interact with legislation stipulating that the statutory responsibility for education rests with local authorities. That is the point that I was making in relation to confusion between the role of the chief inspector and the role of local authorities.

There is a broader challenge, as the member mentioned, and it is an issue that I often discuss with the committee and in the chamber in relation to my responsibilities and those of local government. I am not sure that that can be addressed via a pretty narrow amendment and the proposal in relation to the co-ordination of support that we are discussing this evening.

Amendment 169 would require the chief inspector to have regard to the statutory roles and responsibilities of the persons and bodies that they work with. There is already an obligation on all public bodies to ensure that they exercise their functions appropriately, and that is something that they do by necessity. Making express provision for that is perhaps unnecessary, and the problem that it seeks to address is not entirely clear. Perhaps Mr Briggs can set that out when he speaks to the amendments in the group, but, as it stands, I ask him not to move amendment 169 if he is content with my explanation. However, I will not stand in the way of the amendment if Mr Briggs decides to move it.

I move amendment 87.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking my earlier intervention.

My amendment 317 would require the chief inspector to collaborate with Education Scotland in the exercise of their functions, which could help build a more coherent and collaborative education and learning system, as was called for by a range of stakeholders in the consultation on the bill. I take the cabinet secretary’s point about specificity and whether there is something on which to hang the duty, so, given the concerns about the specific mention of Education Scotland, I will not move amendment 317.

However, I still think that there needs to be coherence in the system and that the current lack of coherence should be addressed. That is why I think that my amendment 318 is really important, as it would require the chief inspector to work with relevant establishments and local authorities to

“support children, young people and their parents in those establishments”

with regard to inspections. We have already debated the purpose of inspections, and given that my position on that is on the record, I will not restate it, in the interests of time.

Amendment 318 is an important amendment. It would add to what the cabinet secretary is trying to do by suggesting that there should be collaboration, instead of simply indicating that the chief inspector must have regard to it.

I am not sure that I take the point about this statutory responsibility falling within the responsibility of local authorities. I agree that that is a statutory fact, but I am not sure that it precludes the chief inspector from working with local authorities and other bodies collaboratively to seek improvement. I am unconvinced that amendment 318 should not be tested in committee.

I acknowledge that amendments 317 and 350 will not be moved, because of the drafting issue, but my broader concern about all the amendments in the group is that they go against the direction of travel in the bill. In certain circumstances, collaboration is not just desirable—the OECD has told us that we need more of it in Scottish education—but what we are seeking to do here is split the inspectorate from Education Scotland, because of the inherent conflict of interest.

I worry about the language in amendment 317, which is that the chief inspector

“must ... work in collaboration with Education Scotland”

on any matters to which their functions relate. However, that will relate to most of their functions, as they are both education bodies. Does that not go against what we are trying to do in the bill, which is to create a degree of separation that we hope will allow the inspectorate to be more robust in its feedback and observations about the system?

The text of amendment 318 is that

“The Chief Inspector may work with relevant educational establishments and local authorities to coordinate the support provided to children, young people and their parents in those establishments.”

That is quite clear, and I think that it takes us a step further than the wording in amendment 87, which is that the chief inspector should

“have regard to the desirability of”

collaborative working, because it is a little bit more directive.

Amendment 318 also says that

“The Chief Inspector may prepare and publish guidance on the exercise”

of their functions under this section of the bill. I think that there is scope to provide the flexibility that is needed, as well as to ask or expect the chief inspector to support education authorities and others in the sector as part of their function, which is to improve schools.

I apologise—I was not being clear. I was talking about amendments 317 and 350 in relation to the work with Education Scotland.

My concern about amendment 318 is similar to that of the cabinet secretary. I think that there is another conflict of interest, in that the effect of the amendment would be to move the inspectorate towards being a body involved in the delivery of the system. That would create a conflict of interest similar to what the bill is trying to resolve. I do not think those involved in co-ordinating the delivery of a service would be sufficiently independent to inspect how the service was being delivered.

Amendment 318 says that the chief inspector would “coordinate the support provided” instead of delivering the change. Once schools get their inspection reports, which, at the minute, are one word long—or, at least, are fairly short—they can be left without much support or advice on how to improve, and my amendment aims to add to the inspectorate’s work the function of trying to help schools collaborate with others to get as much information and support as they might need in order to make the improvements that the inspection report suggests that they need to make. If members support that principle, I would be prepared to bring the issue back at stage 3, but that is the intention behind the amendment. I would hope that I could get some support for giving the inspectorate that type of collaborative, supportive function at stage 3.

20:00  

I will not be moving my amendment 350, for the reasons that the cabinet secretary and Ross Greer have highlighted with regard to Education Scotland being named specifically. Again, however, I would note that I lodged my amendments in this group, because I felt that it was important for us to understand that the system needs to be coherent and that all the parts need to work together. Teachers on the front line and people who work in schools need to feel closer to the decisions around the improvement function in respect of how they can improve the delivery of education to the young people in their establishments. That is what these amendments were intended to do.

On amendment 169, our preference was for an independent inspectorate, and the amendment outlines our expectation in the form of a requirement on the inspectorate to have regard to

“the statutory roles and responsibilities of any persons or bodies”

that it works with. We heard from Pam Duncan-Glancy that it is important to include a range of stakeholders—I hope that that answers the question in that regard.

Amendment 169 is my only amendment in the group, and in the interests of getting something out of tonight’s session, I will be moving it.

I thank all members for their contributions on this group of amendments. It is clear that we all agree on the importance of effective collaboration and working among national organisations across the education system. Indeed, that has been a central aspect of our education reform programme as it relates to our national education infrastructure.

My amendment 87 seeks to emphasise the importance of that while not being overly prescriptive, and allowing for future developments. I see Mr Briggs’s amendment 169 as unnecessary, given the existing obligations on all public bodies, to which I have alluded. However, as I have said, I will not stand in the way of the amendment if he chooses to move it, as I think that he will.

However, I am not able to agree with Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments. As I mentioned previously, amendments 317 and 350 relate inappropriately to an executive agency of Government and do not take account of the fact that that might change over time. I see amendment 318 as more problematic, as it would take the chief inspector into an area in which they would have no role—that is, the co-ordination of support for individuals. I think that Ross Greer made that point, too.

I ask members to support amendments 87 and 169, and I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move her amendments 317, 350 and 318.

Amendment 87 agreed to.

Amendments 165 to 167 and 315 to 318 not moved.

Section 34—Duty when exercising functions

Amendment 319, in the name of Stephen Kerr, is grouped with amendments 168, 170, 321, 322, 89, 90, 323, 171 and 358. I remind members that amendment 322 is pre-empted by amendment 88, which was previously debated in the group on safeguarding: people and buildings.

I will speak only to my amendment 319 and in support of amendment 170, in the name of Sue Webber. These are short but significant amendments that seek to align the operation of the new inspection system with the highest standards of transparency, inclusion and responsiveness. They sit pretty comfortably with the debate that we have just had on the previous group.

Amendment 319 would require the chief inspector, in exercising any of their functions, to do so in a way that ensures effective communication and engagement with all stakeholders in the education system, including learners, parents, carers, educators, education authorities and national bodies, on the foundational principle that those who are affected by public service delivery should have the opportunity to engage meaningfully with how those services are scrutinised and improved. The amendment would bring that principle into the heart of the chief inspector’s statutory duties.

Amendment 170, which I support, complements that by requiring the chief inspector to

“consider all areas of work by the educational establishment”

and to

“consider outcomes for persons undertaking qualifications in the educational establishment”.

I refer to the OECD review of the curriculum for excellence, which noted that stakeholders in Scotland often feel disconnected from national agencies in decision making. It recommended stronger consultation, co-construction and dialogue, and the amendments would operationalise that vision. Similarly, the Muir review made it clear that national bodies must engage more directly and transparently with schools and communities, that that engagement must be structured and not ad hoc, and that it must be part of how the chief inspector operates and not a box-ticking exercise. That is what amendment 319 would achieve.

On amendment 319, I agree that the inspectorate should set high standards in relation to education governance, but my issue with that is about upholding standards. It is surely for the establishments that are being inspected to uphold those standards, rather than for the inspectorate. I am not sure how it would be empowered to do so.

The upholding of high standards in that context would be in relation to the standard against which the inspector would operate rather than any kind of action that would rest on the inspector as a result of the inspection. I hope that that makes sense.

As I was about to say, it is worth noting that public trust in inspection is heavily influenced by whether people feel that they have been heard. When parents understand how the process works and feel that their concerns matter, they are more likely to view inspection reports as credible. Likewise, when teachers know that their views and contexts are taken seriously, they are more likely to act on inspection feedback and, when learners see their experience reflected in the findings, they gain a greater sense of ownership of their education.

Amendments 319 and 170 form part of a wider reform agenda that seeks to put participation, inclusion and trust at the heart of the education system. They ask very little in legislative terms but will deliver a great deal in terms of impact. I urge the committee to support the amendments.

I move amendment 319.

Amendment 168 would expand the list of matters that the chief inspector must have regard to when exercising their functions. As I have outlined in regard to previous amendments, those include safeguarding children’s rights and welfare, specifically in relation to issues raised by the children’s commissioner and in relation to the views and satisfaction levels of “relevant persons”.

My amendment 171 provides the definition of “relevant persons”. Given the previous conversation on child protection and, I hope, constructive discussion going forward, I will not move amendments 168 or 171.

I thank Stephen Kerr for explaining the purpose of amendment 170. I want to reflect a bit on what the committee spoke about earlier in relation to the frequency of inspections, the culture of inspections and how they are perceived by the teaching establishment. We are trying to shift the dial and allow people to have a much more positive view of inspections, so that they see the opportunity that inspections can present to everyone and so that there is, as the amendment states,

“the desirability of carrying out inspections that ... are detailed”

and

“consider all areas of work”.

The amendment is about considering how an inspection affects the quality of learning, teaching, assessment, leadership, support for learning and ethos of a school. Ultimately, that will impact on every learner in a school. The amendment aims to shift the dial so that inspections are viewed and presented in a much more positive manner.

My amendment 321 would place a duty on the chief inspector in the exercise of their functions to take account of

“the priorities of the Scottish Ministers in relation to education”

and of recommendations made by bodies, including committees of the Scottish Parliament, whose remit includes matters relating to education policy.

My amendment 322 would place a duty on the chief inspector in the exercise of their functions to have regard for people who use British Sign Language, have protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 or have additional support needs. Given the circumstances in schools for pupils with additional support needs and the extensive information that we heard in advance of stage 2 about the importance of BSL and people with other protected characteristics, amendment 322 sets out what I think are particularly important aspects that the chief inspector must have regard to when carrying out their functions.

Amendment 323 provides regulation-making powers for ministers to say who is included as a specified body, and amendment 358, which is consequential on that, confirms that any regulations will be made under the affirmative procedure.

I found this group of amendments to be very thought provoking and helpful, and I thank members for their constructive approach and for giving more information this evening about the intention behind each of their amendments.

The upholding of high standards in educational governance and accountability is fundamental to our education system, and Mr Kerr’s amendment 319 helpfully brings that to the fore. I am therefore happy to support the amendment, which will ensure that high standards are not only front of mind for the chief inspector—which I know will be the case—but set out in legislation, too.

As Mr Briggs is not going to move amendment 168, I will move on to amendment 170. I am not of the view that it is quite necessary, on the basis that inspection can—and does—take lots of different forms. Under the current provisions in the bill, the chief inspector will hold autonomy over the types of models to be used in carrying out inspection, including the degree of any inspection. That will be subject to significant consultation—including, quite rightly, with the Parliament.

Furthermore, although the amendment would not require every inspection to be detailed and to cover every aspect of the establishment’s work, the fact is that, in practice, requiring the chief inspector to have regard to the “desirability” of all inspections being “detailed” and all-encompassing might have the unintended consequence of limiting the chief inspector in putting models in place, including those that are agile, proportionate and efficient, and which are based on particular circumstances. For example, the amendment might be unhelpful when it comes to carrying out a special inspection, where ministers have requested the chief inspector to secure the inspection of an establishment in relation to specific issues, when there will be a need to focus specifically on areas of concern.

I understand where you are coming from, cabinet secretary, but I point out that the key word in the amendment is “desirability”. We want inspections that are ultimately of use to the establishment and, indeed, the teachers, so that they can learn from them and improve the school or the educational establishment in question. Will you comment on that?

I take the point that Sue Webber has made and the aspiration that she sets out, but my concern is that, as currently drafted, the amendment might limit the chief inspector’s functions. I am happy to have further discussions with Ms Webber ahead of stage 3, if that would be helpful.

I see merit in Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 321, 323 and 358, but my view is that the bill already contains provisions that will ensure that the chief inspector takes account of views and priorities that are vital to the education system—for example, through the views of the advisory council. I have specific concerns about the part of amendment 321 that would require the chief inspector to have regard to the views of the Scottish Parliament’s education committee. We discussed that issue extensively in the debate on group 11, when the views that Mr Mason and Mr Whitfield shared led to Mr Greer not moving amendment 60. Although it is reasonable to assume that the chief inspector would already have regard to the committee’s views, I believe that setting out a direct requirement in legislation would set an unhelpful precedent. We have all been concerned to ensure that the chief inspector is suitably independent—quite rightly so—and I believe that such a move risks undermining that independence.

I take the cabinet secretary’s point in relation to the cross-over between amendment 321 and the one that I did not move in an earlier group. However, when it comes to how I will vote on amendment 321, if it is moved, it would certainly give me some comfort if the cabinet secretary were able to jump ahead a little bit and indicate the Government’s position on my amendment in a later group—that is, amendment 92, which relates to consultation with the Parliament in preparing the inspection plan and would require the chief inspector to lay a draft of the plan before Parliament for 60 days. If the Government were to agree to that, it would build in direct engagement between the chief inspector and the Parliament without getting entangled in the issues that we explored in relation to my amendment 60.

I can give Ross Greer some comfort: I will be supportive of the approach that he has set out, which provides another opportunity for the Parliament, and this committee, to provide scrutiny. Of course, the committee will also have opportunities to scrutinise, for example, the chief inspector; indeed, I am sure that it will regularly call the chief inspector to give evidence, and quite rightly so. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 321 as it stands.

However, I agree with some of Pam Duncan-Glancy’s other intentions and am keen to explore with her how the chief inspector might be required to take account of relevant national priorities in education. I therefore encourage her not to move amendment 321 and, instead, to work with me to find an agreeable position ahead of stage 3.

20:15  

The intent of Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 322 is commendable; however, that amendment partly overlaps with my amendments 89 and 90, which would require the chief inspector to have regard to the needs and interests of persons who are receiving British Sign Language education. On the other aspects of amendment 322, the requirement to have regard to the needs of those who have protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 is unnecessary, as the operations of the chief inspector will already be subject to the relevant requirements of that act and to the relevant public sector equality duty.

As we discussed last week, there is a further difficulty in that, for example, age is a protected characteristic, so the amendment would require the chief inspector to have regard to anyone who has an age.

As the matters that are raised in Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 322 will be addressed by my amendments 89 and 90 and the existing legal position in relation to the Equality Act 2010, I cannot support amendment 322, and I ask her not to move it.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that, in discussing a previous amendment—my colleague Stephen Kerr’s, I think—on the purposes of inspection, we talked about whether we would set out in those purposes specifics such as the experience of pupils with ASN in schools. Amendment 322 could be a bit of a compromise on that because, at the least, it would require that, in carrying out their function, the chief inspector must consider pupils with additional support needs.

On the point about protected characteristics under the 2010 act, I do not think that there is any reason not to reiterate those protections in the bill.

I disagree in relation to the point on protected characteristics. We had that discussion last week, and I am advised that those are already covered by the Equality Act 2010 and the public sector duty. We need to be mindful about the way in which the proposals would interact. For example, when it comes to protected characteristics, I am not sure that having the chief inspector have regard to anyone who has an age would have the effect that Pam Duncan-Glancy seeks to deliver.

As already discussed, amendments 89 and 90, taken together, will insert requirements for the chief inspector to have regard to the needs and interests of persons who are receiving, or who wish to receive, British Sign Language learner education, British Sign Language medium education or the teaching of British Sign Language in the provision of further education by an education authority. Those important changes respond directly to requests from stakeholders and the committee, and I encourage members to support them.

I call Stephen Kerr to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 319.

There has been a useful debate, and I think that, among the members who are present and who have participated, there is a great degree of unanimity on what the amendments seek to do, which is to reinforce the idea that inspection is not something that is done to schools or to learners; that it should be a collaborative and developmental process; and that, if we are to win trust in the new system from the education workforce and the wider public, engagement and voice must be built in from the start. I therefore press amendment 319.

Amendment 319 agreed to.

Amendment 168 not moved.

Amendment 169 moved—[Miles Briggs]—and agreed to.

Amendment 170 not moved.

Amendment 320, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, is grouped with amendments 344 and 353.

This group of my amendments seek to address a gap that has been identified in inspection in relation to secure care and education. Amendment 320 would create a duty on the chief inspector, in the exercise of their function, to consider the use of restraint and seclusion in education settings in secure accommodation in Scotland. Although the chief inspector inspected the educational aspect of secure accommodation, the Care Inspectorate covers other aspects. That is considered to be a gap. The purpose of the amendment is to introduce the function of inspecting the use of restraint and seclusion in secure accommodation. The effect is to provide for that role and responsibility to be exercised by the chief inspector.

Amendment 344 would expand the chief inspector’s remit to monitor the use of restraint and seclusion in education settings in secure care services, through the existing joint inspection framework with the Care Inspectorate applicable to those services. It aims to ensure that all use of restraint and seclusion in such services is appropriately recorded, reported and monitored as part of the joint inspection process between the Care Inspectorate and the chief inspector, thereby ensuring compliance with article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and articles 3 and 5 of the European convention on human rights.

Amendment 353 would provide the necessary definitions to support the joint inspection duty that is specified by amendment 344. Since lodging my amendments, I have had correspondence from various individuals who have been working with us on these issues to acknowledge that some movement has been made with the Government. I therefore intend not to move the amendments tonight, but I seek assurance that they could be brought back at stage 3 if the conclusion of that work has not delivered what was expected with regard to addressing the gap in inspection. While I do not intend to move the amendments, it is important that we identify that there has been a gap. Since I lodged the amendments, some activity seems to have been encouraged, which is an important aspect of what the process is about.

I wonder whether the amendments would fit better in Daniel Johnson’s Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill. Would the member perhaps see that bill as a better opportunity and a more fitting location?

I thank the member for that intervention and I encourage him, and his party and Government, to support my colleague Daniel Johnson’s bill. However, we have this bill in front of us, and there is an opportunity to look at restraint and seclusion. As I have put on the record, the issue is incredibly important, and I am pleased that Joe FitzPatrick thinks that it is important to include it in Daniel Johnson’s member’s bill. Given that I am sure that he supports what my amendments seek to do, I hope that he will also support that bill.

I move amendment 320.

I very much recognise that there are calls for further legislation in this area. However, although the amendments are obviously very well-intentioned, I am not able to support them. We accept, of course, that there needs to be a robust system in place to monitor restraint where there is education provision in secure centres, but the amendments do not recognise the unique set-up of those centres or, in particular, the difficulties in distinguishing between care and education providers.

Notably, the Care Inspectorate has a vital role in undertaking the inspection of secure accommodation. I have, therefore, lodged my own amendment 88, which was debated in a previous group, to require the chief inspector to have regard to

“the need for relevant educational establishments to have adequate arrangements in place to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and young people”.

That flexible provision is intended to cover the use of restraint.

I think that the cabinet secretary has met with Beth Morrison about her Calum’s law campaign. I do not know whether Daniel Johnson’s bill will time out in the current parliamentary session, but it seeks to improve data collection, the recording of incidents and the training of individuals. It does not look as though that is captured in amendment 88, so perhaps the cabinet secretary would look to lodge an amendment at stage 3 to include that.

I will come to talk about Daniel Johnson’s bill, because we need to be mindful that the bill before us is not focused on restraint, and I would be concerned about potential adverse consequences of legislating for that aspect outwith Mr Johnson’s bill.

Daniel Johnson’s Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill will give all MSPs an opportunity to consider in the round how restraint is reported and monitored—which I think is the point that Mr Briggs rightly makes—across a variety of settings before reaching an agreement on whether further legislative change is needed. I am carefully considering the provisions in Daniel Johnson’s bill. Mr Briggs mentioned my interaction with Beth Morrison, and I have engaged with a number of other parents in relation to concerns around restraint. I will continue to engage with Mr Johnson and with members on all sides of the chamber as his bill progresses. However, I ask members to resist supporting Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments in this group, if she moves them, in order to allow this important issue to be considered holistically in the context of Daniel Johnson’s bill. For those reasons, I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move her amendments.

I call Pam Duncan-Glancy to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 320.

Amendment 320, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 321 not moved.

I remind members that if amendment 88 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 322 due to pre-emption.

Amendment 88 moved—[Jenny Gilruth].

The question is, that amendment 88 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Against

Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)

The result of the division on amendment 88 is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 88 agreed to.

Amendment 89 moved—[Jenny Gilruth].

The question is, that amendment 89 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Against

Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)

The result of the division on amendment 89 is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 89 agreed to.

Amendment 90 moved—[Jenny Gilruth]—and agreed to.

Amendments 323 and 171 not moved.

Section 34, as amended, agreed to.

Section 35—Advisory council

Amendment 324 not moved.

On a point of order, convener. Apologies, my vote on amendment 88 should have been yes, therefore my vote on amendment 89 should have been yes as well. I mixed up the amendments. I would have voted for amendment 89 in the cabinet secretary’s name.

I thank Ms Duncan-Glancy for her point of order. We cannot go backwards once we have approved a section, but the member’s point is now recorded and confirmed in the Official Report.

Amendment 325 not moved.

Amendment 172 moved—[Miles Briggs].

The question is, that amendment 172 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)

Abstentions

Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)

The result of the division on amendment 172 is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 172 disagreed to.

Amendments 326 and 327 not moved.

Amendment 328 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].

The question is, that amendment 328 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

20:30  

There will be a division. Before we get to it, however, I understand if members want me to slow down a wee bit. I am rattling through the procedure and I do not want people to miss their notes. We are going through a lot of amendments, so please feel free to tell me to slow down slightly.

We come to the division on amendment 328.

For

Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

The result of the division on amendment 328 is: For 2, Against 8, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 328 disagreed to.

Amendments 329, 330 and 91 not moved.

Section 35 agreed to.

After section 35

Amendment 173 not moved.

Section 36—Inspection plan

Amendment 174 not moved.

We turn to the group entitled “Inspection plans: preparation and matters to be covered”. Amendment 331, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, is grouped with amendments 175, 25, 176, 177, 334, 38, 92, 92A, 92B and 39.

I point out that amendment 39 is pre-empted by amendment 179, which was previously debated in the group entitled “Independence of the chief inspector”.

Amendment 331 would require the inspection plan to specify

“how notice of an inspection will be given to an establishment in advance of that inspection”,

and amendment 334 would require the inspection plan to specify

“how an assessment will be made about the mental and physical wellbeing support available in the establishment for ... persons undertaking education or training”

or

“persons providing teaching or training”.

Given what we discussed earlier about the environment in classrooms, the experience of young people and staff in schools and in particular the rise in violence, that is an important aspect of the inspector’s role.

I agree entirely with the principle behind amendment 331. I agree with that behind amendment 334, too, but I am concerned that, as it is currently drafted, it would cover only students and teachers or lecturers, which would exclude support staff in the school and anybody else who might be involved. It would exclude all staff other than the educators.

I take Mr Greer’s point that amendment 334 could be read in that way. It could also be read in such a way that the people providing support are taking part in training and education, too, and support staff often tell us that that is what they are having to do. However, I would not want there to be any ambiguity in the drafting so, if the member has found that, it would be important for us to work together on the matter ahead of stage 3. The principle behind amendment 334 is an important one, and I hope that the member will consider it to be so.

My amendments in the group are crucial. We need to find a way to ensure that inspections pick up on what is happening as regards the wellbeing and experience of the pupils in schools and the people who work there. I realise that there have been behaviour plans, summits and other initiatives, but it would give a real focus to inspections if they were to include those factors. The mental and physical wellbeing of everyone in a school, whether they are working or being educated there, is incredibly important, which is why I lodged the amendments.

I move amendment 331.

My two amendments in the group serve to make clear what an inspection plan should consider. Right now, it could be argued that it is as simple as whatever is in the “How Good is Our School?” document. However, that is now 10 years out of date, and we are looking for something that will bring a bit more rigour in the standards against which establishments will be evaluated. That is why my amendment 175 seeks to add the words

“including indicators of quality and improvement”.

That wording aims to bottom out the standards against which our establishments will be evaluated. We want there to be indicators of quality and improvement within an inspection framework against which an establishment’s performance will be evaluated and then reported on.

In amendment 177, I have further expanded that with the addition of what I would like to make clear is what I define as a rigorous and evidence-based inspection. Members will note that it states what the type of inspection activities could include, so there could be other things, but we want there to be interviews, observation, data analysis and questionnaires with stakeholders. Importantly, we also want evidence to be provided that can be analysed, assessed and then triangulated to reach conclusions to form a report on the quality of the provision as determined by that inspection framework.

More importantly, using that sort of analysis will mean that we can also measure improvement from that. That is what my two amendments are here to do—to allow us to have a clear starting point and to measure progress and improvement in the establishments.

Colleagues will remember that the committee recently completed our evidence sessions on my colleague Liz Smith MSP’s Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill, which has now completed stage 1. The general principles of that bill have been supported by the Parliament. Amendment 25, in the name of Liz Smith, is designed to ensure that, where a relevant educational establishment provides outdoor education as part of its curricular or extracurricular programme, that provision will be part of the inspection process.

My amendment 176 seeks to improve how recommendations are made to a school and how that establishment can respond. My colleague Sue Webber eloquently outlined that it is about what we do with an inspection when it is delivered and what quality it provides. The bill presents an opportunity for teachers and the wider school community to have more understanding of where they can take recommendations forward as well as responding to them, so that we do not see inspections left hanging. I hope that that is a positive step forward.

For the many teachers and others who work in our schools that I have spoken to, an inspection could be a career-defining moment, but in some cases inspections are not providing that detail in what they offer parents, guardians and carers. My amendment therefore specifies what would be expected, how the independent inspections may be responded to, and a more constructive way of taking them forward.

I also support Sue Webber’s amendments in the group.

Amendments 38 and 39 are relatively simple amendments. Amendment 38 seeks to strengthen provisions in relation to the chief inspector and amendment 39 seeks to strengthen provisions in relation to the Scottish ministers. The amendments concern the range of groups that the chief inspector must consult in preparing the inspection plan and that the minister must consult when bringing forward the relevant regulations.

The wording that I have used in the amendments is

“such persons as the Chief Inspector considers representative of relevant educational establishments”—

that is, they should consult a representative range of schools in particular, although there are other establishments under the inspectorate’s purview. I chose the wording to make it clear that the expectation is not that they must consult every school in Scotland before engaging in the process, but that they will consult a representative group thereof and organisations that represent their interests.

With amendment 92, I am trying to address some of the concerns and areas of really important disagreement in the committee and in Parliament on where the inspectorate should sit and who it should be accountable to. Without going back to the previous debate about the independence of the inspectorate, I note that the amendment will require the chief inspector to lay a draft inspection plan before Parliament for 60 days. Parliament can then give feedback on the plan, and the chief inspector must have regard to that feedback. The feedback will not be mandatory. We can be open and honest about the fact that Parliament is not always right, but our feedback should be taken seriously nonetheless, and any resolution that is passed by Parliament should be given due regard. The amendment is intended to address the concern about parliamentary oversight of the inspectorate and how it goes about its duties.

I urge committee members to oppose the cabinet secretary’s amendments 92A and 92B, which seek to shorten the timescale from 60 to 40 days. We should all reflect on the capacity challenges that Parliament and committees face, and 60 days is my attempt at a compromise. Originally, I was more inclined towards 90 or 120 days. The inspection plan is not a document that should ever be produced in a rush or with urgency. There should be time to consider it, and 60 days will strike the right balance. I recognise the concerns about having a period of 90 or 120 days, but 60 days strikes an appropriate balance, while 40 days would provide challenges to Parliament, particularly given that, as we are all aware, circumstances often dictate that we must turn our attention to other matters. The impact of the situation at the University of Dundee on this committee’s work plan is an example.

For those reasons, I hope that members will support amendment 92, but I cannot support amendments 92A or 92B.

I thank members for lodging amendments 331, 175, 25, 177 and 334. I appreciate that members are looking for assurances about particular things that the inspection plan will cover, which is a familiar theme from the previous groups. However, it is my view at the current time that those amendments reflect operational-level decisions that are for the chief inspector to make, and I worry that the amendments would inhibit their independence in that regard. My view is that it would not be appropriate to prescribe that level of detail in legislation. I note that, in their evidence to the committee, both Professor Donaldson and Professor Muir highlighted the risk of hemming in the chief inspector with excessive strictures in legislation.

The inspection plan will, of course, have to be prepared in consultation with the advisory council and others. I will come to Mr Greer’s amendment 92, which would guarantee the committee a voice in that consultation, in a moment. However, my view is that it is much more appropriate for the content to be set by the chief inspector in the light of that consultation, rather than being fixed now in a way that might not always remain appropriate.

For example, there could be a thematic inspection where evidence is sought from a range of schools about a particular aspect such as pupil attendance rates. If evidence was simply being sought from them by email, for example, it would not be an inspection where notice would need to be given in the usual way. However, amendment 331 would implicitly require that some notice of inspection was always given.

That is why we are best to take the view that, as long as the inspection plan is capable of covering all those matters, which it is, we should not set it in stone in primary legislation. I know from my discussions with the inspectorate that that view is supported by the FDA, the trade union representatives and Education Scotland, with whom I discussed the matter only yesterday. I therefore encourage members not to support those amendments.

Mr Briggs’s amendment 176 proposes that we include in the inspection plan the process for making recommendations and also expectations regarding how they should be responded to. I cannot see that changing over time or inadvertently tying the chief inspector’s hands, so I am happy to support that amendment.

I also believe that Mr Greer’s amendments 38 and 39 are useful in making explicit the importance of consultation by both the chief inspector and Scottish ministers, as applicable, with those who might be considered to be representative of educational establishments. Although that might reasonably be assumed to be implicit in the existing provisions, I am happy to support those amendments. We will likely want to return at stage 3 to the mention in amendment 39 of the “Chief Inspector”, which I suspect might be a typo, as I am not sure that it makes sense to have the chief inspector make a judgment call about consultees, given that ministers are the ones with the consultation duty under that provision. However, if Mr Greer wishes to press amendment 39 today, I will be content to support it, and it can be tidied up as necessary.

I move on to the amendments in the group that would require the draft inspection plans to be laid before Parliament. Although I support the principle of amendment 92, I strongly encourage members to support the Government amendments 92A and 92B, which seek to amend the one that Mr Greer has lodged. For operational purposes, 40 days is a much more manageable and proportionate time period. It is also in line with the time periods that are attached to numerous other plans such as the fuel poverty strategy, the national islands plan, the additional support for learning code of practice, the community empowerment national outcomes, the wildlife code of practice and the Scottish Parliament elections code of practice. If that period is sufficient for all those very important documents, I do not see a compelling case for making it significantly longer in the case of the inspection plan.

A 40-day period aligns with the period that the Parliament has to annul negative regulations and the period that the committee has for voting on affirmative ones. That includes regulations that are far longer and more complicated than I would expect the inspection plan to be.

20:45  

I highlight that amendment 92 does not, in fact, confine the reports or resolutions of the Parliament to those that occur during the specified laying period. The amendment has a bit of latitude: as long as the plan is still in draft form at the time when the resolution is passed or the report is issued, it will have to be taken into account. I also note that our working assumptions on commencement are that factoring in the timescale of 60 days excluding recess would leave it almost impossibly tight for the chief inspector to produce the first inspection plan.

As such, although I will remain supportive of the principle of amendment 92 if my amendments 92A and 92B are not agreed to today, I will, in light of the points that I have just made, look to bring the issue back at stage 3 for further consideration. However, I hope that members are willing to support my amendments today.

I call Pam Duncan-Glancy to wind up and press or seek to withdraw amendment 331.

I have listened to the points on whether the timescale should be 60 or 40 days, and I am erring towards Ross Greer’s argument that it should be 60 days. It is important that the Parliament has as much time as possible to scrutinise the plan. Narrowing the period to 40 days could make it very tight. For example, if it was laid on the day before recess, we would have very few days left when we came back from recess to be able to do anything about it.

On that point, I note that parliamentary recesses are not counted in the stipulated 40 days.

I still do not think that 40 days is enough, but I appreciate the clarification on recesses. It is incredibly important that we have 60 days—it could possibly be longer—because we need to have some time for scrutiny.

I do not see a particular form of parliamentary scrutiny set out in amendment 92, other than that the draft will be laid and members will be able to discuss it. My colleague Ross Greer might want to help me out on the intentions behind not adding a particular scrutiny process to the amendment.

As much as I have views on the particular form that scrutiny should take, my general view is that one Parliament should not bind the next. It would be relatively unprecedented to put specific forms of scrutiny into primary legislation, and it would perhaps restrict our successors from adapting their approach to scrutiny in a way that is more appropriate to things that we cannot yet predict.

Ultimately, the decision would still rest with the Parliament, but I cannot assume that the form of scrutiny that I believe to be appropriate now will still be appropriate in five or 10 years’ time. I would not want our successors to have to change primary legislation in order to change what could be quite minor elements of their approach.

I thank Ross Greer for accepting my prompt to intervene and clarifying that. I understand and accept that point. Given that any other form of scrutiny of the plan is absent from the bill, his amendment 92 is useful.

I do not intend to move amendment 334, due to what my colleague Ross Greer said about other members of staff who are employed by the establishment. I did not intend to exclude them and would rather that the provision was far more inclusive. I am sure that he appreciates that.

However, I press amendment 331.

The question is, that amendment 331 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)

Abstentions

Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 5, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 331 disagreed to.

Amendment 175 not moved.

Amendment 25 moved—[Miles Briggs].

The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For 

Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) 
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) 
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) 
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) 
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Against 

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) 
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) 
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) 
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) 
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 5, Abstentions 0. As the outcome of the division is a tie, I will use my casting vote as convener in order for the committee to reach a decision. I vote in favour of amendment 25.

Amendment 25 agreed to.

Amendment 176 moved—[Miles Briggs]—and agreed to.

Amendment 177 not moved.

Amendments 332 to 335 not moved.

Amendment 38 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Amendment 92 moved—[Ross Greer].

Amendment 92A moved—[Jenny Gilruth].

The question is, that amendment 92A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For 

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) 
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) 
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) 
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) 
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)

Against 

Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) 
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) 
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) 
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) 
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 5, Abstentions 0. As the outcome of the division is a tie, I will use my casting vote as convener in order for the committee to reach a decision. I vote against amendment 92A.

Amendment 92A disagreed to.

Amendment 92B not moved.

Amendment 92 agreed to.

Amendment 178 not moved.

I remind members that, if amendment 179 is agreed to, I will be unable to call amendments 336 and 39 due to pre-emption.

Amendment 179 not moved.

Amendment 336 not moved.

Amendment 39 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Amendment 180 moved—[Sue Webber].

The question is, that amendment 180 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For 

Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) 
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) 
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) 
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Against 

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) 
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) 
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) 
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) 
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) 
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) 

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 180 disagreed to.

Section 36, as amended, agreed to.

We will take a comfort break. I suspend the meeting for 10 minutes.

20:54 Meeting suspended.  

21:05 On resuming—  

Section 37—Reports on inspections

Welcome back. Amendment 181, in the name of Miles Briggs, is grouped with amendments 40, 11, 337 to 339 and 18 to 20.

As with my amendment 176, amendment 181 seeks to improve inspection reports by requiring the chief inspector’s annual report not only to describe inspections and other activities but to cover any recommendations made as a result of those inspections. Allowing the public to see the wider role that the inspectorate plays would, as other members have outlined, add value, and such an approach would ensure that we highlight not just the inspectorate’s role but what is covered in an inspection. I should say, too, that amendment 181 complements amendments that have already been agreed to.

I move amendment 181.

Amendment 40 seeks to make accessible versions of inspection reports available to learners, but it would build in flexibility, too, as we are talking about learners at very different ages and stages and in various settings. It would give the chief inspector, where they consider it appropriate, the ability to ensure that inspection reports would be presented in accessible formats to learners at the establishments involved, which would generally be schools. Although some schools communicate inspection results to pupils, others do not; moreover, headteachers have raised with me the possibility of councils interfering with such communications. Empowering the chief inspector in that role would, I think, mitigate some of those concerns about potential interference.

In some cases, the first time that pupils become aware of the outcome of an inspection at their school is when they see negative press coverage—if the result is negative—or hear hearsay and gossip in the local community. Placing such a requirement on the inspectorate itself would ensure consistency of approach, and it would remove the potential for spin on the part of the education authority or, indeed, the school management.

Amendment 40 would allow for flexibility, too. After all, it is clearly more appropriate to communicate inspection results directly to high school pupils than it is to do so to very young children in early learning and childcare settings. Given that it would build in that flexibility, I hope that members will be able to support amendment 40.

Amendment 11 would simply put into legislation something that happens in practice at the moment. The chief inspector currently sends a copy of a report to the establishment that has been inspected, before the report is published; however, there is nothing that says that they have to do so. It would be useful for us to set such practice as the minimum standard, in legislation, to ensure that it continues.

Amendment 18 is about ensuring that, in inspections, consideration is given to compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. Given the significant change in practice that is required across a number of areas as a result of that legislation, a consistent approach to checking on its implementation would be valuable, and it would catch many of the discussions that we have had so far on promoting the rights of children and young people in schools.

Amendment 20 is intended to ensure that valuable recommendations that are made by inspectors would be acted on, without ultimately requiring that to happen. These establishments—and we are talking about schools here—deserve a level of autonomy, but they should have regard to the reports; indeed, significant weight should be put on them. In that sense, amendment 20 pairs well with amendment 21.

In the interests of time, convener, I will finish there.

As amendment 337 is consequential on my amendment 304, which I did not move, I will not be moving it, either.

Amendment 338 would require that any report published by the chief inspector on an educational establishment fully sets out the reasons for the findings that have been made, and amendment 339 would require the chief inspector to

“have regard to any representations made”

by relevant stakeholders, including those

“representing the interests of registered teachers or college teaching staff”

of the

“inspected establishment.”

In the interests of time, convener, I will leave the amendments there for members to decide on.

Although I appreciate the intention behind amendments 337 and 338, I have concerns about their impact on the independence of the chief inspector, if they are agreed to. I have always been clear about the importance of ensuring that the chief inspector is able to operate independently, set inspection priorities and be independent in their findings. The bill’s current provisions give the chief inspector the power to decide on the format and content of each inspection report; indeed, the provisions have been specifically drafted that way to ensure that the chief inspector has the flexibility to report as they see fit.

It is also significant that, when Professor Muir gave evidence to the committee, he expressed concern that the inspector could become dominated by reporting, which is a risk that I believe these amendments could exacerbate. I also note that the chief inspector is highly likely to continue the practice of thematic inspections—which we have discussed in relation to other groups this evening—whereby a number of establishments might be inspected only on a particular aspect. Amendment 337, when taken with amendment 304 in group 26, would prevent that from being possible, as it would require every matter listed in amendment 304 to be covered in each inspection report. For example, discipline policies would always have to be reported on, as would the employment contracts held by teachers, even when those aspects were not relevant to the theme that the chief inspector wanted to examine.

On amendment 338, it is, of course, right that judgments in inspection reports should always be based on sound reasons, but insisting that “full reasons” be included in every report would risk bogging down the chief inspector legalistic discussions about what “full reasons” would constitute, as well as limiting their ability to make judgments about what was important, rather than peripheral, to include in reporting. For those reasons, I ask members not to support amendments 337 and 338.

In relation to Mr Briggs’s amendment 181, although I am supportive of the chief inspector making recommendations to strengthen areas for improvement, it might not always be appropriate to set out all the recommendations in a published report. For example, there might be concerns that a specific recommendation could inadvertently lead to the identification of an individual child or young person in a small school. However, I believe that there is merit in looking at the issue further, and I ask the member to work with me on it ahead of stage 3.

Similarly, I see Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 339 as being useful. It would, of course, be right for the chief inspector to

“have regard to any representations made by”

staff in the establishment under inspection, and I am happy to support the inclusion of that in the bill.

On Mr Greer’s amendment 40, which would require the chief inspector to publish child-friendly versions of all inspection reports and other accessible versions that are appropriate to those receiving education at the establishment in question, I appreciate the member’s good intentions, although I am not sure how many children and young people currently engage with school inspection reports. As cabinet secretary, I read them regularly, and I do think that we will want to make them accessible.

More broadly, although that is my intention, I believe that amendment 40 is unnecessary and, importantly, its inclusion could accidentally weaken what is already covered in the bill. Section 49 already contains a requirement for the chief inspector to

“have regard”

when publishing documents

“to the importance of communicating in a way that best meets the needs of ... children and young people ... users of the Gaelic language”

and

“others affected by the exercise of the Chief Inspector’s functions.”

I am concerned that adding something bespoke in relation to inspection reports could inadvertently undermine section 49 by implying that it is not already suitably covered in all reports. On that basis, I ask Mr Greer not to move amendment 40.

On amendment 11, sending copies of inspection reports to establishments before they are published is already current practice in the existing inspectorate. Indeed, I further clarified that point yesterday when I met the trade union representatives from Education Scotland whom I mentioned earlier. That said, I do understand the member’s desire to secure the practice in legislation.

There is a bit of a risk, though, in setting out such a level of operational detail in legislation, particularly for thematic inspections, where reports might cover many different establishments with a diverse range of needs. I therefore cannot support amendment 11. However, I ask Mr Greer to agree to work with me to find a more suitable alternative ahead of stage 3.

21:15  

On amendments 18 and 19, I sympathise with Mr Greer’s good intentions in seeking to ensure compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. However, I have some concerns about those amendments, the most significant of which is that asking the chief inspector to assess how UNCRC requirements are being met would essentially be asking them to perform what is, and must remain, a function of the courts.

There are also other issues with amendments 18 and 19, such as the fact that not every relevant educational establishment would be subject to UNCRC requirements. However, more significantly, there are important complexities in how the UNCRC act applies, given that, for the purposes of that act, a “relevant function” is one that is conferred in legislation by the Scottish Parliament.

Significant parts of the functions of education authorities are also conferred by the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Those are not “relevant functions” under the UNCRC act, so the prohibition on public authorities acting incompatibly does not apply in relation to those functions. However, the UNCRC requirements apply to other functions of education authorities, including those conferred by the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000 and the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004.

Amendments 18 and 19 would require the chief inspector to make complex and nuanced judgments as to which aspects of an educational establishment’s service provision are done in pursuance of a “relevant function” in respect of those aspects to which a public authority’s duty under section 6 of the UNCRC act applies, and those to which it does not apply. Those would be important judgments to get right, and amendments 18 and 19 would appear to add layers of legal risk to the chief inspector’s inspection activities. That would be likely to require significant resources and might cause delays in the preparation and publication of inspection reports.

I therefore ask Mr Greer not to move amendments 18 and 19. However if he still wishes to do something in that space, I believe that setting out some specific requirements might be more likely in practice to have the effect that he desires. I ask that he works with me on the drafting of such an amendment for stage 3.

On Mr Greer’s amendment 20, it would not be proportionate or a good use of staff time to require every establishment to read and review every single inspection report when it is published. My current expectation is that there will be about 250 reports a year. There are just 260 weekdays in each year, and school holidays take that to 195 working days a year. Therefore, more than one report would have to be reviewed on each working day. I am conscious that the committee has given itself 60 days to review the chief inspector’s report.

One purpose of the report on performance of education in Scotland will be to share key lessons that are of wider relevance, which will be sufficient to ensure that lessons are suitably drawn.

On that basis, I ask Mr Greer not to move amendment 20. However, I am supportive of the principle behind his amendment 21 in an upcoming group, which is confined to reports on the performance of education establishments.

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s comments. I am happy not to move amendment 20. We will come to that later amendment on the reports that the inspector will publish on the wider system. I entirely take the cabinet secretary’s point about the drafting of amendment 20. The intention was not to make relevant establishments have due regard to every report—that is, to include reports that are published on other establishments—but to ensure that an establishment would have due regard to any report that is published about itself. Does the cabinet secretary agree that there is perhaps space to agree something for stage 3 to ensure that a school gives due regard to any inspectorate report about that school?

As I have intimated, I will be happy to work with the member on that exact point ahead of stage 3.

I call Miles Briggs to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 181.

Given the cabinet secretary's comments, I will not press amendment 181.

Amendment 181, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 40 moved—[Ross Greer].

The question is, that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 8, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 40 disagreed to.

Amendments 11, 337 and 338 not moved.

Amendment 339 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to.

Amendments 340, 182 and 18 to 20 not moved.

Section 37, as amended, agreed to.

Section 38—Annual report

Amendment 341, in the name of Stephen Kerr, is in a group on its own.

This is the first of three amendments in my name that relate to the chief inspector’s annual report as a vehicle for ensuring transparency, scrutiny and public confidence in the inspection system. Together, the three amendments represent a way of ensuring that an annual report that is issued by the chief inspector is not simply a retrospective administrative document but a clear, accessible and purpose-driven statement of how the chief inspector has fulfilled their statutory functions and contributed to the continuous improvement of Scottish education.

Amendment 341 provides that the chief inspector must include

“the performance of relevant educational establishments during that financial year”

in their annual report. That would strengthen the current provisions in the bill by giving the annual report shape, focus and relevance, helping to move from passive reporting to active accountability. A robust annual report, laid before Parliament and scrutinised in public, is essential to the culture of transparency that we are trying to build across the education system. It is not enough to carry out inspections; the chief inspector must also explain what has been learned from them, how those lessons are being shared and what changes are being driven as a result.

Recent criticisms of Education Scotland have included concerns about the lack of responsiveness and clarity in how inspection findings are followed up and disseminated. Stakeholders, including teaching unions, parents and local authorities, have all called for a clearer and more meaningful inspection narrative. Amendment 341 ensures that the annual report provides that narrative, offering the Parliament and the public a window into performance and improvement.

That is not only about data; it is about impact. A well-crafted annual report should allow us to understand trends, where practice is improving, where challenges persist and where further support or reform might be required. It provides an opportunity for the chief inspector to reflect, set priorities and help to shape the national conversation about education.

I would like to reference international comparators. In countries such as the Netherlands and New Zealand, the annual reports of school inspectorates are major public documents that contribute directly to education policy and reform. I believe that Scotland must aspire to the same standard, which is what amendment 341 would help to achieve.

The amendment also aligns with the broader expectations of the Muir review and the OECD findings, which highlighted the importance of transparency and public engagement in system governance. An annual report should not be an internal document; it should be a tool of national reflection and improvement.

Amendment 341 would turn the annual report from a statutory formality into a meaningful strategic instrument. It would support the integrity of the inspection system, empower stakeholders and strengthen the public’s confidence in the quality and direction of Scottish education. I urge the committee to consider and support it.

I move amendment 341.

I cannot support amendment 341. It might be helpful to clarify that the chief inspector will have to produce two annual reports. The first annual report will be on the chief inspector’s activities over the course of the preceding year, to which amendment 341 relates. The intention is to provide ministers, Parliament and the wider education system with an overview of the work that the chief inspector has undertaken.

The second annual report will be the report on the performance of Scottish education. It is in this report that the chief inspector will set out their views, based on the performance of individual establishments that have been inspected, on the overall performance of Scotland’s education system.

I believe that Mr Kerr’s amendment is unnecessary, as what he is looking for will already exist in the annual report on the performance of the education system. For that reason, I ask Mr Kerr not to press amendment 341.

I have listened carefully to the cabinet secretary, and I will withdraw amendment 341 and focus on my next two amendments.

Amendment 341, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 183 not moved.

Amendment 342 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to.

Amendment 343 not moved.

Section 38, as amended, agreed to.

After section 38

Amendment 344 not moved.

Section 39—Report on performance of the Scottish education system

Amendment 184 not moved.

Amendment 345 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to.

Amendment 346, in the name of Stephen Kerr, is grouped with amendments 347, 21, 14 to 16, 93 and 112.

I will restrict my remarks to amendments 346 and 347, both in my name.

I will again speak to the importance of robust and regular reporting on the overall performance of Scotland’s education system. My amendments go to the heart of what accountability in education should mean. They are about ensuring that the new system of education governance established by the bill does not just monitor individual schools but keeps a watchful, transparent eye on the system as a whole.

Amendment 346 would place a duty on the chief inspector to publish a comprehensive national-level report every year, assessing the overall performance of the education system in Scotland. Those reports would have to include a summary of the findings of the inspections carried out during the reporting period in relation to the performance of the Scottish education system, an assessment of the aims of current education policy in Scotland, the implementation of current education policy in Scotland and any recommendations on education policy and its implementation.

The amendments are not about adding layers of bureaucracy; they are about anchoring our system in evidence, openness and long-term thinking. Without periodic national-level assessments of performance, we cannot claim to be running a genuinely accountable system.

The chief inspector will have privileged insight into what is happening across all sectors of education. They will have access to the full range of inspection data, thematic reviews, stakeholder feedback and trends in quality assurance. That position carries a national responsibility, and the system must report not only on individual establishments, but on patterns, progress, gaps and risks.

As things stand, Education Scotland publishes an annual report, but it is often descriptive and selective. The new chief inspector, as established by the bill, must be required to go further. They must tell the full story of Scottish education—its strengths, its weaknesses and its trajectory. Amendment 346 would mandate that responsibility. That is entirely consistent with the wider vision laid out in the Muir review, which called for clearer structures, better accountability and a renewed focus on improvement across the system. It also aligns with recommendations from the OECD review of curriculum for excellence.

In short, our national education system must be able to see itself clearly. We must be able to measure where we are, track where we are going and reflect on how we are doing. Such a report would also allow Parliament to engage more constructively with education. Too often, debate about our schools is driven by newspaper headlines, isolated statistics or anecdote.

Amendment 346 would allow the chief inspector to include in their report such themes or areas of focus as they judged relevant. That is important, because education is a dynamic, evolving field, and new challenges emerge. For instance, digital learning, post-Covid recovery, additional support needs and regional disparities might all merit special attention at different times, and amendment 346 would give the chief inspector the flexibility to spotlight those issues in a national context.

As I mentioned a few moments ago, the proposal is not inconsistent; rather, it is in line with international comparators. In jurisdictions such Ontario, New Zealand and Finland, regular system-wide reports are published by independent bodies, and those reports are used to inform strategy, promote transparency and support dialogue between Government, the profession and the public. I believe that Scotland should be no different.

21:30  

Finally, I note that these amendments would be not just a technical improvement but a statement of intent. They would say that we believe in evidence over spin, in scrutiny over secrecy, and in the power of democratic accountability to drive improvement. They would say that we are not afraid to ask hard questions, to look honestly at performance and to act on what we learn. Amendments 346 and 347 are not just amendments to the bill; they are an invitation to build a culture of learning at every level of our education system, including the Government. They reflect the values of professionalism, honesty and service, and they would give the chief inspector a national role worthy of the trust that the public place in Scottish education. I urge the committee to support both amendments.

I move amendment 346.

Amendment 21 covers what we have just discussed in relation to the previous group. My intention in this amendment and my amendment 20 in the previous group, which I agreed not to move but instead to work with the cabinet secretary on, is to ensure that the relevant establishments have due regard to any report about their own establishment and any relevant system-wide reports, thematic reports and so on. A high school should have regard to a report about itself, and it should also have due regard to any thematic review of numeracy, LGBT inclusion or whatever it may be.

Amendments 14 to 16 would simply change the time of the reporting period to align it with the academic year. My concern is that, if the reports do not align with the academic year, we will have a classic situation in which a report is published midway through the academic year and we then start to see creeping excuses such as, “We’re halfway through addressing that problem, so we can’t comment on it yet.” If we align the reports with the new full academic year, it will be harder to avoid the issues that are raised, and that would make a bit more practical sense.

That being said, I have lodged amendments 93 and 112 so that ministers may, by regulation in the future, modify the reporting period only after consultation with the chief inspector, the advisory council and anyone else they consider appropriate. That is because there can be unforeseen events—the pandemic was an obvious example of that. It would have been inconvenient, to say the least, to have had to produce an annual report at the height of the pandemic. However, in the subsequent year, I would not have wanted any requirements that limited the reports to 12 months, as that would have made it possible to write off months previous to that. One year may be missed because of a pandemic, for example, but I would want the subsequent report to cover and look back on an 18-month or 24-month period.

Amendments 93 and 112 are there simply to provide flexibility to change the reporting period in the future, with appropriate accountability.

I thank members for their explanations of the purposes of their amendments.

I understand and am sympathetic to the intentions behind Mr Kerr’s amendments 346 and 347, on reporting content. The provisions in the bill as introduced are intended to strengthen the independence of the chief inspector by giving them the flexibility to report on matters as they see fit.

Although Mr Kerr’s amendments would, to an extent, risk limiting the flexibility of the chief inspector in that regard, it is likely that the chief inspector would include some reference to the topics that are set out in Mr Kerr’s amendments in their report. However, I believe that we need to be careful to maintain the boundary between inspection and policy and not draw the chief inspector beyond their role of independent evaluation into policy making by default.

For example, if the Government adopted policy recommendations from the chief inspector, how could the chief inspector then be seen to evaluate them objectively? That would risk opening the door to charges of them marking their own homework. In any case, the amendments would not quite work in their current form, as the wording would need to be limited to education policy in Scotland in so far as it relates to the chief inspector’s functions. I ask Mr Kerr not to press or move these amendments but to work with me ahead of stage 3 to address the points that his amendments attempt to cover.

On Mr Greer’s amendment 21, I would very much expect establishments to have regard to the report on the performance of the Scottish education system in any case. The current wording of the amendment is somewhat problematic in that it would require establishments to have regard to all of the reports that had ever been published under section 39—even ones that had become out of date. I hope that Mr Greer is open to my suggestion that we work together on a reworded version of the amendment ahead of stage 3.

I agree that Mr Greer’s amendments 14, 15 and 16 would be helpful in aligning the reporting cycle of the annual report with the academic year, and his amendments 93 and 112 would include a power enabling ministers to amend that cycle through regulations, should that be required in the future. I am therefore happy to support those amendments and I urge members to vote in favour of them.

I have heard what the cabinet secretary has said and I assure her that my intention is to reinforce and empower the independence of the chief inspector rather than to curtail or limit it in any way. I have already said to her privately that my vision is of a powerful chief inspector who would be the equivalent of the Auditor General for Scotland: someone who would be willing to speak up and speak truth to Parliament—to power, in effect. I do not see their assessing the elements and implementation of current education policy in Scotland—as per my amendment 346—as marking their own homework. However, I look forward to discussing those matters further with the cabinet secretary, and I will not press the amendment at this time.

Amendment 346, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 347 and 21 not moved.

Amendments 14 to 16 and 93 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Section 39, as amended, agreed to.

After section 39

Amendment 348 not moved.

Section 40—Other reports

Amendments 185 and 349 not moved.

Amendment 186 moved—[Sue Webber]—and agreed to.

Section 40, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 41 and 42 agreed to.

After section 42

Amendment 350 not moved.

Section 43—Powers of entry and inspection

Amendments 187 and 188 not moved.

Sections 43 to 45 agreed to.

Section 46—Necessary improvements: referral to Scottish Ministers

Amendment 189 not moved.

Section 46 agreed to.

Section 47—Preliminary notice of enforcement action

Amendments 190 to 195 not moved.

Section 47 agreed to.

Section 48—Enforcement direction

Amendments 196 to 205 not moved.

Section 48 agreed to.

Section 49—Publication of documents

Amendment 94 moved—[Jenny Gilruth]—and agreed to.

Amendment 22 moved—[Ross Greer].

The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Against

Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)

The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 22 agreed to.

Section 49, as amended, agreed to.

Section 50 agreed to.

Schedule 3—Transfer of staff, property etc to Qualifications Scotland

Amendment 351, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, is grouped with amendments 95 and 113.

Amendment 351 would require the initial board of qualifications Scotland to be treated as a transitional arrangement only, by putting in place processes to reappoint all board members through an open process within six months of the board’s establishment. It is an important amendment, as the new body cannot simply be seen as the Scottish Qualifications Authority with a new name. We have debated that issue at length in the committee and during this legislative process, so I will not cover it again. Suffice it to say that trust in the system is at an all-time low and anything that we can do to improve trust should be done. That is why amendment 351 is important.

By requiring a fresh appointments process, the amendment would ensure that the board of qualifications Scotland would be open to new voices and expertise. It would also help to tackle the cultural, structural and institutional problems that have made the SQA so remote, unaccountable and resistant to change.

The amendment would send a clear political message that reform means real change—that it means not just an organisation with a new name, but a change in leadership, governance and public trust. The proposed transitional approach would allow for continuity for existing learners while showing that we are serious about building a new qualifications body that reflects the needs and values of learners and other stakeholders.

The amendments to the accreditation function that we will debate again at stage 3 are among the amendments that would potentially restore trust in the system. Amendment 351 would be a good step in that direction, and I commend it to the committee.

I move amendment 351.

I thank Ms Duncan-Glancy for explaining the purpose of her amendment, but, for the reasons that I will set out, I cannot support it. I understand that the amendment stems from concerns that the leadership that has presided over the SQA would transfer to qualifications Scotland. I assure the member and other members that I remain committed to ensuring that we have the right leadership for qualifications Scotland.

That process has already started with the appointment of Shirley Rogers as the chair of the SQA. She has provided invaluable leadership and has ensured that the SQA is delivering its functions and embracing reform. I hope that members will agree that it is critical that we have continuity of leadership.

Building on that, we have also approved leadership changes in the form of the appointment, in autumn 2024, of five new board members to the SQA board. I made those appointments to bring additional teaching and college experience to the board, alongside other skills that are invaluable in supporting the transition. Those members were recruited on the basis that they, too, would become members of qualifications Scotland.

Amidst such progress to refresh the leadership, Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment would risk bringing many practical challenges by requiring that board members who transfer to the new board would have their appointments terminated and would need to reapply. We would run the risk that some members might choose not to reapply, which would risk qualifications Scotland losing valuable skills and experience at a time when it needs them most. We also know that appointment rounds do not always yield the results that we hope for.

I am mindful, too, of the need, as we discussed previously, to ensure that the board is compliant with the minimum membership numbers and the criteria that the bill will establish, and of the need to ensure that it can function within the law.

21:45  

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

I am not sure whom to give way to, convener, but I am happy to give way to both members respectively.

We will go with Pam Duncan-Glancy first.

Thank you, convener. I also thank Ross Greer and the cabinet secretary.

If the cabinet secretary is not supportive of amendment 351, can she tell us what other mechanism there is in the bill to ensure that there is not simply a process of transferring over the leadership of an existing organisation that does not have the trust or support of many stakeholders? What other mechanism is available to ensure that the leadership does not simply transfer without at least reapplying for appointment?

I highlight the fact that we will be appointing the chief executive, which will bring fresh leadership to the organisation. We have already had a partial refresh of the board, and there will be the upcoming refresh that I talked about in relation to the membership. I am quite clear that the leadership of the organisation has been transformed since late 2023, when Ms Rogers was appointed, so I am not necessarily sure that I would accept the member’s point in that respect.

However, there are a number of risks in relation to board appointments, which we have discussed at length in previous evidence-taking sessions. Therefore, we need careful succession planning when considering such appointments, and I do not believe that Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment supports effective and efficient public body governance.

Would Mr Greer like to come in now?

I am grateful, cabinet secretary.

At this point, I should put on the record that I have previously called for every member of the SQA board to go. However, given that the recent changes to the board, particularly the appointment of Shirley Rogers as chair, have had a dramatic and positive impact on board culture, I think that it would be counterproductive to throw away that progress by agreeing to amendment 351. My worry is that that would send the wrong signal, given that the change of culture at the top that many of us have called for has begun to happen. Indeed, I would be disappointed if the Government waited until we had the new body before making those cultural changes via new board appointments.

I am happy to support Mr Greer’s points.

I will move on to the amendments that I have lodged, both of which support the bill’s implementation. Amendment 95 clarifies that the transitional provisions in the bill do not apply to the SQA’s functions or services that it delivers, other

“than in or as regards Scotland.”

Amendment 113 works along the same lines by providing that certain provisions in the bill concerning dissolution of the SQA may be commenced only once the SQA

“has no functions exercisable otherwise than in or as regards Scotland.”

Those important technical changes are being made in recognition of the good work that we have undertaken with the UK Government on an order under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998. Work is well under way on various provisions to support the bill’s implementation, such as updating references to the SQA in reserved legislation. In the light of the reach of the Education (Scotland) Act 1996, which established the SQA under an act of the UK Parliament, we are seeking to include in the order provisions that recognise that.

Under the amendments, the SQA will continue to be dissolved by the bill, but the amended provisions now reflect the order in which things are to take place. The amended provisions are designed to work in tandem with the provisions of the section 104 order to deliver our policy to replace the SQA with qualifications Scotland.

I call Pam Duncan-Glancy to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 351.

I take the points that the cabinet secretary and Ross Greer have made about the current leadership and Shirley Rogers specifically, but I do not think that my amendment goes against retaining any leadership that can withstand the process. Having seen Shirley Rogers, I do not doubt her for a second. In any case, this should not be personal; it is about restoring trust in the system.

I do not doubt that a robust process could yield the right people, either by bringing people back in or by bringing new people into the system, if that were necessary. It would be helpful for us to have a mechanism that would allow us to have a refresh at this point. Everyone might return, but, at the very least, there would be an opportunity to ask the question.

On this occasion, I think that this is about people, because we are talking about short-term measures. We are considering the current board. I would not want there to be any period of uncertainty here. I think that Shirley Rogers is impressive—indeed, she was impressive when she came before the committee—and I would not like her to think that her job might come to an end. I want her to crack on and make the changes that we want to see. If I had been asked the question a year ago, I might have agreed with you, but not now.

I echo everything that Willie Rennie has said about Shirley Rogers, but the point before us is that there is a real lack of trust in the organisation and in some of its leadership, so the ability to refresh it is important.

Another important point is that the process of recruiting to qualifications Scotland has already started, before qualifications Scotland has been set up. We do not yet know what the bill will look like or what the full functions of the organisation will be, so we do not yet know what membership we will need to have on the board of qualifications Scotland. We will have an opportunity to reassess things at that moment in time, after the bill has gone through, if it is passed. We can see what qualifications Scotland’s functions are and what is expected of it. We can then assess whether the board that is there is the board that should continue or whether it needs new membership.

Like other members, I am very sympathetic to what Pam Duncan-Glancy is trying to achieve. However, I am not quite sure where she has got the six-month period from. I do not know what the cabinet secretary will say in her closing remarks, but perhaps something could be considered on the time period for serving on the board or having a refresh. Given the need to move the new organisation forward, I am slightly concerned about the six-month period creating uncertainty.

I should confirm that the cabinet secretary will not be closing on this group; she has spoken. Ms Duncan-Glancy is winding up the debate.

I thank Miles Briggs for his intervention.

I suggested the period of six months because of the urgency of establishing trust in the organisation from as early a point as possible. That could include continuing or refreshing the membership. Amendment 351 merely seeks to provide an opportunity to look at it again within six months.

If the cabinet secretary wishes to intervene to indicate whether there could be a slightly longer period—although I think that the full term of a board member would be too long—I would be prepared to consider that.

It seems that the cabinet secretary is not prepared to consider any alternative period of time for refreshing the board.

In my comments to Ms Duncan-Glancy, I have talked about some of the substantive changes that have happened at the SQA in recent months. I hope that the member will at least recognise that. I am not convinced of the need for all members of the current board to reapply six months after the organisation comes into being. That would create a real challenge for the stability of the organisation. It is stepping up and responding to the challenges that we all know exist in relation to our qualifications system. It has to get on with the job, and it has to be ready to do that. I am just not convinced of the proposal in amendment 351, and I am not sure that Ms Duncan-Glancy will convince me that a different timescale would help.

I thank the cabinet secretary for that intervention, and I hope that that helps my colleague Miles Briggs with his deliberations.

I am not sure that I can get the cabinet secretary to make another intervention on Pam Duncan-Glancy, but I think that it is important that there is an opportunity for a refresh. I wonder whether the member, along with the cabinet secretary, could go away and think about a suitable amendment for stage 3. We all want confidence to be rebuilt in the new organisation, and I am sympathetic to what the member is trying to achieve. I do not know whether the Scottish Government needs to be a bit more flexible on what the transitional arrangements look like. Where people are not performing, we need to build in opportunities for a review to take place.

We should remember that the six-month period is not the period for which some of the board members will have been in post. They will have been in post for quite a bit longer than six months, and that includes those who are being recruited to the new organisation, which has not yet been set up.

I do not think that six months is too short a period. I am sympathetic to Miles Briggs’s point about considering whether the period could be a little bit longer, but I do not hear much movement from the cabinet secretary or any indication that she is prepared to negotiate on the issue at stage 3—unless I am detecting that now.

Today, we are faced with the option that, after six months, we should examine the process and consider whether we need to refresh the board. Given that the Government has begun to recruit to a board that does not yet exist for an organisation that has not yet been established, with functions that have not yet been agreed in legislation, it is important that we have an opportunity to do that.

On a point of clarification—

I am sorry, cabinet secretary—do you have a point of order, or are you intervening on Ms Duncan-Glancy?

I am simply seeking to intervene on Ms Duncan-Glancy.

Is that okay, Ms Duncan-Glancy?

That is absolutely fine.

The Government has not begun any recruitment to qualifications Scotland, because that organisation does not exist yet. We have recruited to the SQA. I just wanted to put that on the record.

I thank the cabinet secretary for that. However, there was a discussion in the chamber about recruiting to the board of qualifications Scotland, during which I said that I thought it unusual that we were being asked to vote to begin the recruitment process for qualifications Scotland. It is that point that I was referring to—

Will Ms Duncan-Glancy take an intervention?

I am happy to.

If my memory is correct—perhaps the cabinet secretary can confirm this—the committee had a substantial debate about that in relation to a Scottish statutory instrument, which I think that the cabinet secretary spoke to. Indeed, some of us abstained in that vote, because we were concerned about an appointments process that would appoint people to a board or an organisation that did not exist. There have been quite robust debates about the matter in the committee and in the chamber.

I thank the convener for that intervention. Considering that it is nearly 10 pm, any clarification on anything that we have discussed at any point is helpful.

I maintain my concern that, without amendment 351, we would not have a mechanism. Even if it were a short process, I believe that we need something to ensure that we can be confident and comfortable that the people who are at the top of the organisation that will be set up by the bill, should it be passed, have the skills and integrity, and the confidence of the public, to take forward the qualifications body in the way that we need them to, given what we have all been through.

On that basis, I am not yet convinced that I should withdraw the amendment.

Are you pressing it, therefore?

I press amendment 351.

The question is, that amendment 351 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 351 disagreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Section 51 agreed to.

Section 52—Transitional provisions

Amendment 95 moved—[Jenny Gilruth].

The question is, that amendment 95 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Abstentions

Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)

The result of the division is: For 9, Against 0, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 95 agreed to.

Section 52, as amended, agreed to.

Section 53 agreed to.

Schedule 4—Consequential modifications

Amendment 96 to 107 not moved.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Section 54—Interpretation

22:00  

I remind members that, if amendment 206 is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendment 207, due to pre-emption.

Amendment 206 not moved.

Amendments 207 and 352 not moved.

Amendment 108 moved—[Jenny Gilruth]—and agreed to.

Amendments 109, 110, 208 and 353 not moved.

Amendment 23 moved—[Ross Greer].

The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Abstentions

Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)

The result of the division is: For 9, Against 0, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 23 agreed to.

Amendment 354 not moved.

Section 54, as amended, agreed to.

Section 55—Regulation-making powers

Amendments 355 to 357, 111, 26, 209, 210 and 358 not moved.

Amendment 112 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Section 55, as amended, agreed to.

Section 56 agreed to.

Section 57—Commencement

Amendment 113 moved—[Jenny Gilruth].

The question is, that amendment 113 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Abstentions

Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)

The result of the division is: For 9, Against 0, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 113 agreed to.

Section 57, as amended, agreed to.

Section 58 agreed to.

Long Title

Amendment 114 moved—[Ross Greer].

The question is, that amendment 114 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

On a point of order, convener. My colleague Stephen Kerr had a lot to say on this amendment. I do not know whether it would be appropriate—[Laughter.]

Sadly, I have called the division. If you had thought of mentioning that before I did so, we could perhaps have considered your request. I apologise to committee members, and I accept responsibility for not allowing Mr Kerr’s views on the topic to be debated.

For

Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 8, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 114 disagreed to.

Long title agreed to.

That concludes our consideration of the bill at stage 2.

I thank the cabinet secretary, her officials, committee members and others who have lodged amendments and allowed us to debate the issues. I also make a special mention of broadcasting, the official report and others who have facilitated our long meetings well into the evening hours. I thank our clerks and the entire committee team for their work on the bill. Finally, we are also grateful to the legislation team, who, as I know from personal experience, take members’ ideas and put them into a form that can be debated.

With those remarks, I close the meeting.

Meeting closed at 22:05.