Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendment 168 would expand the list of matters that the chief inspector must have regard to when exercising their functions. As I have outlined in regard to previous amendments, those include safeguarding children’s rights and welfare, specifically in relation to issues raised by the children’s commissioner and in relation to the views and satisfaction levels of “relevant persons”.

My amendment 171 provides the definition of “relevant persons”. Given the previous conversation on child protection and, I hope, constructive discussion going forward, I will not move amendments 168 or 171.

Why would it then take until September for the reports to be published? That is the question that most of us would ask. Once you have received those forecasts, the work will have been done on that.

So “very soon” is June.

On a point of order, convener. My colleague Stephen Kerr had a lot to say on this amendment. I do not know whether it would be appropriate—[Laughter.]

Good evening, cabinet secretary and colleagues. I will speak to amendments 157, 166 and 178. As we have heard throughout the committee’s deliberations, culture change is not easy to legislate for. In the area of child protection, we need to look to strengthen the specific safeguarding child protection responsibilities and place those into inspections. I have lodged these probing amendments to consider how we can provide for the complaints function and improve HMIE’s inspection plans in relation to it.

I have developed the set of amendments as part of an ask that is contained in the on-going public petition PE1979, on whistleblowing and safeguarding. I pay tribute to the petitioners Alison Dickie, Bill Cook, Christine Scott and Neil McLennan for their on-going campaigns and important work in that area. The petition, in short—as the committee will be pleased to hear—calls for the establishment of an independent national whistleblowing officer for education and children’s services. Although the proposal does not sit comfortably as part of the bill, I want to probe how the new inspectorate could take forward a new function or, indeed, how Parliament could create such a role at stage 3.

I welcome the amendments in the name of my colleague Stephen Kerr in this group, too.

I believe that there is a clear gap in relation to safeguarding and child protection responsibilities being part of a school inspection, and that is what has motivated the amendments. If we are to ensure that safeguarding and child protection are at the heart of any educational establishment, we need to look towards how that is being measured and taken into account. Specifically, establishing a complaint function would allow for a mechanism whereby the chief inspector could have confidence and means to hear from parents, carers, teachers and other persons who want to report concerns about any relevant educational establishment. Those concerns would be recorded and then used to inform HMIE’s inspection plans.

As members know, I have tried throughout the stage 2 process to embed parent and carer voices in the matter of school inspections and in the bill. I believe that we need additional measures to take those voices into account.

On amendment 169, our preference was for an independent inspectorate, and the amendment outlines our expectation in the form of a requirement on the inspectorate to have regard to

“the statutory roles and responsibilities of any persons or bodies”

that it works with. We heard from Pam Duncan-Glancy that it is important to include a range of stakeholders—I hope that that answers the question in that regard.

Amendment 169 is my only amendment in the group, and in the interests of getting something out of tonight’s session, I will be moving it.

First, I put on record Liz Smith’s apologies, as she is unable to attend this evening’s session and was also unable to attend this morning.

Amendment 24, in her name, is an important amendment that I support, especially as a Lothian MSP. Members will recall the tragic incident that occurred in April 2014, when Keane Wallis-Bennett died while changing for a physical education class, as a result of a prefabricated wall collapsing at Liberton high school here in the capital. That was despite repeated warnings about the instability of the wall for several months before the fatal accident.

We all understand that there are situations when freak accidents—storms, for example—can cause unforeseen damage to a school building. That happened at Oxgangs primary school in 2016, when a cavity leaf wall collapsed. Notwithstanding that, there are other situations that naturally give parents and carers cause for concern.

In 2018, my colleague Liz Smith made a freedom of information request to all 32 local authorities, which brought out that 150 safety incidents had been reported in our schools. Since then, we have had the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete situation in schools, including the worrying incident at Queen Victoria school in Dunblane.

To be fair to the Scottish Government, it has put in place measures to ensure that there are additional checks on school buildings. I suggest, however, that parent, pupil and teacher anxiety remains, especially in areas where some aspects of poor school estate still exist. I fully appreciate that local authorities have a statutory obligation to carry out building inspections of their school estate. That is right and proper, as Willie Rennie has outlined. It means that, for each school, there is certification of safety, or, if there are issues, the relevant local authority is obliged to take urgent action. In the independent sector, that would apply to the board of governors.

The key thing is to ensure that there is full transparency when it comes to the physical school estate and school campus. Through her amendment 24, Liz Smith suggests that, when the results of the usual school inspection are published, currently by Education Scotland, accompanying certification should be signed off by an independent qualified building engineer professional to prove that the school campus has been declared—

Yes.

Could another approach be to look at reforming SAAB? Any potential transition period raises concerns, and some of the things that you suggest could be included and taken forward by reforming SAAB, rather than almost throwing the baby out with the bath water as we transition. I take on board what you say about the economic opportunities that are coming, but we know about those and we see that different sub-committees have been working on some of that already. Those concerns, which I think that we are all hearing about, are taken forward without a completely new organisation having to set up the expertise.

I would like to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say before taking that decision.

Amendment 303 proposes that the chief inspector be appointed for a fixed and non-renewable term of seven years. Again, that is about protecting the independence of the role. A non-renewable term removes the risk of perceived favour-seeking and liberates the postholder to lead fearlessly and impartially. Seven years is, I believe, a reasonable period—it is long enough to ensure that there is strategic continuity and that an impact is made. It also keeps fresh leadership in mind. That approach is consistent with other public appointments in Scotland and beyond. It is a safeguard against politicisation, entrenchment of authority and dilution of challenge.

At the committee’s meeting last week, we had a long discussion about whether seven years was an appropriate length of time to be head of an organisation, and whether there would be unintended consequences in respect of forcing someone out of the role, even if they were performing highly. I do not think that that would be the case.

To summarise, amendments 302 and 303 would work together to professionalise and protect the role of the chief inspector.

I move amendment 302.