Seòmar agus comataidhean

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 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 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 However, that is now 10 years out of date, and we are looking for something that will bring a bit more rigour in the standards against which establishments will be evaluated.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.

In reference to where we are tonight, does the Education, Children and Young People Committee have the capacity to deal with nearly 400 amendments to an education bill to the point that we are having to sit for a number of evening sessions? We need to look long and hard at the Scottish Parliament’s capacity and the amount of legislation and other work that committees are asked to deal with.

Audit Scotland is held up as being a really good and heavily critical organisation that is well respected for how it reports to the Parliament in its various inquiries. When it came to my intentions, my head was in that space: I was looking for the chief inspector of schools to have kudos, influence and the trust of the public, which have been absent in relation to a number of things in education over the past few years.

That is where we are. However, given the feeling and sentiment, I will not press amendment 140.

Amendment 140, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 75 and 141 not moved.

Thank you, convener. It is nice to be back at the committee this evening. There are some familiar faces in the room and a couple of new faces online. You will all be delighted to learn that, although there are 44 amendments in my name in the group, it will not be an arduous task to go through them, because they are all linked and serve the same purpose of strengthening the independence of the chief inspector.

As members will remember, I was on the committee when we took our stage 1 evidence, and the one thing that I remember hearing loud and clear is that, as it stood, the Education (Scotland) Bill did not go far enough in securing the independence of the chief inspector’s role.

As the bill stands, it states in schedule 2 that

“the Chief Inspector is not subject to the direction or control of any member of the Scottish Government”

other than where that is explicitly set out in legislation. Ultimately, ministers will retain the ability to direct the chief inspector to secure inspections of specific types of educational establishments. Those broadly reflect the current powers of ministers that are contained in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.

As I said, we heard repeatedly that the new His Majesty’s chief inspector of education needs to be—and, almost more importantly, needs to be seen to be—independent. Organisations including the Association of Heads and Deputes in Scotland, the Educational Institute of Scotland and children’s services at East Renfrewshire Council all argued that

“consistent reference throughout the Bill to the Chief Inspector carrying out inspections at the request of ministers … suggests the Chief Inspector is not independent but is an officer who acts on behalf of the Government.”

The fact that we have the moratorium does not mean that regulation should cease. Education is critical to so many people’s futures, and if we think that a new function is needed, it should not be dismissed offhand on the back of such a report.

Can I finish my sentence?

I thank the cabinet secretary for responding in such detail. I also thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for her support and the variety of her amendments, which are scattered and peppered throughout the list. To different degrees, we have all been hoping to rebalance the chief inspector’s role in our schools, in order to bring back confidence and trust. We want accountability to be in the right place.

You mentioned some of the competing conceptions, cabinet secretary. Although you raised the moratorium on new SPCB-supported public bodies, which I tend to support, I go back to the convener’s earlier comments—

I remind the member of what I said. It is equally important for the inspector to be seen to be independent and to reinforce their independence if we want the role to have kudos and if we want to drive reform, to restore confidence in the inspection process and the outcomes of that process, and to enable the public to have trust in our system.

The reason that there are 44 of my amendments in the group is that, time and again, the bill refers to the chief inspector acting on behalf of the Government. Many of the provisions were open to a lot of interpretation.

On how the independence of the inspectorate is to operate in practice, I will read out some excerpts from paragraphs 269 to 272 of the stage 1 report, which was very well drafted.

Professor Graham Donaldson was the head of the inspectorate from 2002 to 2010, when it was a single body, before it became part of Education Scotland. He told the committee that he had

“more operational independence then than the chief inspector of education would have under the terms of the bill”

as it is currently drafted, and that

“Some of the provisions in the bill mean that the chief inspector would be in a position of constantly having to negotiate what he or she does, rather than having operational freedom and being accountable for their decisions”.

Furthermore, he said that, in order

“to provide on-going monitoring of how the system is serving young people, and to provide, where necessary, sometimes difficult messages to Government or to others about where policy is not working in practice or where it needs to be changed”,—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 18 September 2024; c 42, 44, 43.]

there needs to be further independence. He also argued that, if the current inspectorate had felt able to deliver difficult messages, the OECD reviews might not have been needed. He said that amendments were therefore required to “better enshrine” the independence of the chief inspector. That is why all these amendments are in front of the committee this evening.

Despite the assurances that the cabinet secretary gave, I did not feel that the bill created a fully independent inspectorate, which is why I lodged my amendments.

Amendment 140 seeks to make it clear, by removing the caveat

“subject to any contrary provision in this or any other enactment”,

that the chief inspector is not subject to the direction or control of any member of the Scottish Government.

Amendments 144, 155 and 158 all seek to remove the influence of the Scottish ministers on the office of the chief inspector in relation to the authority to perform and carry out its function, so that it can operate fully independently from ministerial interference.

Amendments 163 and 164 seek to change the accountability of the chief inspector by ensuring that he or she will report to a committee of Parliament whose remit includes matters relating to education—which, as it stands now, would be this committee. I seek to reinforce that in various other amendments. Amendments 141 to 143, 153, 154, 146, 148 and 150 would replace references to “Scottish Ministers” with references to “Parliamentary corporation”, and amendments 152, 200 to 205, 198, 199, 196, 197, 191, 192, 193 and 194 would replace references to “Scottish Ministers” with references to “Chief Inspector”, which is required to permit the role to function fully independently and report to Parliament or, as stated in the amendments, the Parliamentary corporation.

Amendments 183, 184 and 185 all seek to remove the requirement to send any reports to the Scottish ministers; instead, amendments 186 and 182 would have the effect that the chief inspector “must”, rather than “may”, report to the Scottish Parliament.

In summary, all those amendments in my name would basically remove references to “Scottish Ministers”.

Amendments 179 and 180 seek to delete the authority of the Scottish ministers to determine the frequency of inspections. Amendment 180 would ensure that, when preparing an inspection plan, the chief inspector and ministers must also involve the parliamentary committee.

Amendment 189 would remove section 46, “Necessary improvements: referral to Scottish Ministers”. That is self-explanatory, given that we want to remove any influence of the Scottish Government on the office of the chief inspector.

I move amendment 140.

In reference to where we are tonight, does the Education, Children and Young People Committee have the capacity to deal with nearly 400 amendments to an education bill to the point that we are having to sit for a number of evening sessions? We need to look long and hard at the Scottish Parliament’s capacity and the amount of legislation and other work that committees are asked to deal with.

Audit Scotland is held up as being a really good and heavily critical organisation that is well respected for how it reports to the Parliament in its various inquiries. When it came to my intentions, my head was in that space: I was looking for the chief inspector of schools to have kudos, influence and the trust of the public, which have been absent in relation to a number of things in education over the past few years.

That is where we are. However, given the feeling and sentiment, I will not press amendment 140.

Amendment 140, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 75 and 141 not moved.