Seòmar agus comataidhean

As today is a new day, I again draw attention to the entry in my register of interests regarding payments that I received at the start of this parliamentary session.

In the first instance, I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement and for the interaction that we have had over this challenging area of safeguarding. At the minute, an area exists that is perhaps best described as grey. It is the area where the GTCS interacts—or does not interact—with local authorities that have a responsibility for employing teachers. That grey area has existed for a long while. The purpose behind my amendment was to draw attention to it and to seek a resolution to the problem. Unfortunately, there are a number of recorded instances in which local authorities have not stepped up to the responsibility that the public might expect of them and that responsibility has fallen between those two stools.

I very much welcome the contribution from the cabinet secretary and her putting on the record the Government’s intention to write to the chief inspector on a regular basis to draw their attention to the guidance. A list of that guidance might be helpful beyond the chief inspector’s purposes, as people would know that they could refer to it instantly when looking for the guidance. On the basis of the cabinet secretary’s undertaking, I do not intend to move amendment 218 when the time comes. I thank members across the chamber—in particular, the cabinet secretary and those who have advised her—for their support on this matter.

Stephen Kerr will know that I fully support the principles of whistleblowing and have done so for a long time. However, rather than reiterate what I discussed with him at stage 2, I simply note that I still have concerns about his amendments, because education is not like the NHS. It is a different environment, and a different group makes up the jigsaw of it. As much as I agree that a whistleblowing entity is necessary, I say to Stephen Kerr, with the greatest respect, that I am not sure that the process for which his amendments provides is it.

My two amendments in the group—amendments 291 and 292—are the result of something that we have seen on a number of occasions. The stage 2 amendment 226, which was agreed to, inserted into schedule 1 a new subparagraph that requires membership of the qualifications Scotland learner interest committee to include children and young people, regardless of whether they are undertaking or have recent experience of undertaking a qualifications Scotland qualification. The reason for that was that it is important that young people are not just at the table but part of the decision-making process.

Unfortunately, however, during the bill’s journey at stage 2, that provision lost its commanding paragraph and it now flies around unaided. With the assistance of the Government and its drafting team, which I thank, I lodged amendments 291 and 292, which will give the provision somewhere to live in the bill and ensure that it survives in the act, if the legislation travels that far.

My question is about how we define a teacher in training. We have four-year degree courses and one-year postgraduate courses. There is then a period of training for probationary teachers, which is followed by on-going training as teachers go through the early years of their career. What does the member envisage his amendment covering?

It is a pleasure to speak in this group. To echo Mr Kerr’s earlier contribution, I am profoundly disappointed that I will be unable to support most of his amendments in the group. He has talked about the profound importance of the bill and of education to the future of Scotland and its people. This is a seminal moment, certainly in this session of Parliament, with regard to an education bill.

Mr Kerr has talked about the separation of powers, which is where I am challenged by the amendments that he has lodged. To group them, there is a set that wishes to involve the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and a set that wishes to bestow responsibilities on a committee of the Parliament.

With the greatest respect to Mr Kerr, who has lodged the amendments, I think that we need to take the separation of power one step higher. I pose no challenge to the point about the independence of various inspectors, departments and organisations in the education sector, but I question the route that he proposes to take to achieve their independence.

I go back to 1748 and the prescient words of Montesquieu. He said:

“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body ... there can be no liberty.”

He continued:

“there is no liberty”

if the powers of the judiciary are not

”separated from the legislative and executive ... There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body ... to exercise those three powers”.

Although I would question the gendered wording of a quote from so long ago, if we bring the responsibility to govern and oversee into the legislature, we would fundamentally challenge the purpose of the Parliament. I am deeply afraid that Mr Kerr’s amendments go too far by placing the responsibility on the Parliament’s committees. The member has spoken on a number of occasions about committees’ obligations to oversee, review and hold the Government to account. If we are going to do that in the Parliament, the Parliament is not the place to govern elements of education; it is the place to hold the executive to account for its responsibility to the people of Scotland and to Scotland’s young people in particular to have an education system that is fit for the purpose for which it is intended, which is to give us all a better future.

Such an approach was not considered at the bill’s earlier stages. My understanding is that local authorities frequently have a headteacher who is specified to deal with home schooling. They look at and integrate with the families who choose home schooling and check that the curriculum for excellence or its equivalent is being delivered.

Is Mr Greer aware of how many local authorities are not doing that? My subjective understanding is that there is frequent outreach from a significant number of local authorities, particularly across the south of Scotland, to the very people he is talking about.

The member said that amendment 156 originated from the higher history debacle. Can he explain why he chose periods of financial years rather than academic years, which would shorten—or indeed lengthen—the period for anything that needs to be changed before the next round of examinations?

Will my colleague take an intervention?

I am very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. I shudder at your premonition of how today might go.

Had members listened to my colleague’s submission, they would know that her conclusion was fully explained.

I am very grateful—[Interruption.] I suggest that my colleague has articulated clearly the reason for her conclusion in the summation of her contribution. Had—