Seòmar agus comataidhean

Of course.

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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”—

I am happy to.

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 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.