Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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 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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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—