Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 appreciate that. Thank you.

If the committee were interested in the outcomes from the different approaches, would we be able to access them?