Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am simply seeking to intervene on Ms Duncan-Glancy.

No. However, in answer to Mr Mason’s question, I would suggest that, in order to meet the target, there would have to be a recruitment drive to support the requirement for a significant number of additional inspectors. That would be extremely challenging, given the depth of experience that is required for someone to become an inspector. After all, inspectors do not come fully formed; we have to train people, and that will take time.

Inspectors often join the inspectorate directly from schools—I am thinking of, for example, headteachers and deputy headteachers. There are constraints on how quickly we can get staff out of school and trained up, which might compromise any approach to the associated challenges that we have already heard about this evening with regard to recruitment in the system more broadly.

There would also be an increased burden on teachers in having to prepare for the inspections; indeed, that is the point that I was trying to make to Mr Kerr. His proposal would add to the unnecessary pressure on schools, which, as we know, are already struggling with capacity issues. I therefore cannot accept Mr Kerr’s amendments and I encourage him not to move them.

Mr Greer raises an important point. Historically, schools were inspected on a generational basis—that is, every seven years—and we have moved away from that model in recent years. However, I am happy to investigate Mr Greer’s point, because I think that it is an important one.

I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move amendment 309. I will discuss the matter further with her and any other members, including Mr Greer and Mr Kerr, with a view to identifying what, if any, mutually acceptable provisions on the frequency of school inspections could be brought back at stage 3.

I disagree in relation to the point on protected characteristics. We had that discussion last week, and I am advised that those are already covered by the Equality Act 2010 and the public sector duty. We need to be mindful about the way in which the proposals would interact. For example, when it comes to protected characteristics, I am not sure that having the chief inspector have regard to anyone who has an age would have the effect that Pam Duncan-Glancy seeks to deliver.

As already discussed, amendments 89 and 90, taken together, will insert requirements for the chief inspector to have regard to the needs and interests of persons who are receiving, or who wish to receive, British Sign Language learner education, British Sign Language-medium education or the teaching of British Sign Language in the provision of further education by an education authority. Those important changes respond directly to requests from stakeholders and the committee, and I encourage members to support them.

I highlight the fact that we will be appointing the chief executive, which will bring fresh leadership to the organisation. We have already had a partial refresh of the board, and there will be the upcoming refresh that I talked about in relation to the membership. I am quite clear that the leadership of the organisation has been transformed since late 2023, when Ms Rogers was appointed, so I am not necessarily sure that I would accept the member’s point in that respect.

However, there are a number of risks in relation to board appointments, which we have discussed at length in previous evidence-taking sessions. Therefore, we need careful succession planning when considering such appointments, and I do not believe that Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment supports effective and efficient public body governance.

Would Mr Greer like to come in now?

In the stage 1 report, the committee recommended that a statement on the purposes of inspection should be included in the bill. I agree on the value of setting out the purposes of inspection, but it is also my view that we need to strike a careful balance to ensure that we do not hinder the flexibility or independence of the chief inspector, which I believe Mr Kerr’s amendment 304 would do. As committee members will know, Professor Muir highlighted the importance of that balance when he gave evidence during stage 1. He advised that the bill should set out only the

“high-level principles in relation to how the inspectorate should operate”,—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 18 September 2024; c 18.]

leaving operational detail to the chief inspector.

As I said earlier, I remain open to further consideration of the topic. I note that Ms Duncan-Glancy raised a pertinent issue in relation to teacher recruitment. She will be mindful of the issues that I raised in response to Mr Kerr about the responsibilities of local government. However, I am also mindful that the inspection plan could set that out as a national focus, for example. The committee will have the opportunity to review the inspection plan and feed into it accordingly.

I intend to press amendment 86, as it is a minor, technical amendment that clarifies how an existing power in section 31 of the bill can be used. That is being done to ensure that the end result is transparent and accessible, with a full definition in one place, rather than a definition being split between the bill, when enacted, and regulations. I will not press my other amendments in the group, and I ask that Mr Kerr and Ms Duncan-Glancy do the same in order to create the opportunity to bring forward a strengthened amendment at stage 3.

Amendment 84, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 30—The inspection function

Amendment 304 not moved.

I thank members for lodging amendments 331, 175, 25, 177 and 334. I appreciate that members are looking for assurances about particular things that the inspection plan will cover, which is a familiar theme from the previous groups. However, it is my view at the current time that those amendments reflect operational-level decisions that are for the chief inspector to make, and I worry that the amendments would inhibit their independence in that regard. My view is that it would not be appropriate to prescribe that level of detail in legislation. I note that, in their evidence to the committee, both Professor Donaldson and Professor Muir highlighted the risk of hemming in the chief inspector with excessive strictures in legislation.

The inspection plan will, of course, have to be prepared in consultation with the advisory council and others. I will come to Mr Greer’s amendment 92, which would guarantee the committee a voice in that consultation, in a moment. However, my view is that it is much more appropriate for the content to be set by the chief inspector in the light of that consultation, rather than being fixed now in a way that might not always remain appropriate.

For example, there could be a thematic inspection where evidence is sought from a range of schools about a particular aspect such as pupil attendance rates. If evidence was simply being sought from them by email, for example, it would not be an inspection where notice would need to be given in the usual way. However, amendment 331 would implicitly require that some notice of inspection was always given.

That is why we are best to take the view that, as long as the inspection plan is capable of covering all those matters, which it is, we should not set it in stone in primary legislation. I know from my discussions with the inspectorate that that view is supported by the FDA, the trade union representatives and Education Scotland, with whom I discussed the matter only yesterday. I therefore encourage members not to support those amendments.

Mr Briggs’s amendment 176 proposes that we include in the inspection plan the process for making recommendations and also expectations regarding how they should be responded to. I cannot see that changing over time or inadvertently tying the chief inspector’s hands, so I am happy to support that amendment.

I also believe that Mr Greer’s amendments 38 and 39 are useful in making explicit the importance of consultation by both the chief inspector and Scottish ministers, as applicable, with those who might be considered to be representative of educational establishments. Although that might reasonably be assumed to be implicit in the existing provisions, I am happy to support those amendments. We will likely want to return at stage 3 to the mention in amendment 39 of the “Chief Inspector”, which I suspect might be a typo, as I am not sure that it makes sense to have the chief inspector make a judgment call about consultees, given that ministers are the ones with the consultation duty under that provision. However, if Mr Greer wishes to press amendment 39 today, I will be content to support it, and it can be tidied up as necessary.

I move on to the amendments in the group that would require the draft inspection plans to be laid before Parliament. Although I support the principle of amendment 92, I strongly encourage members to support the Government amendments 92A and 92B, which seek to amend the one that Mr Greer has lodged. For operational purposes, 40 days is a much more manageable and proportionate time period. It is also in line with the time periods that are attached to numerous other plans such as the fuel poverty strategy, the national islands plan, the additional support for learning code of practice, the community empowerment national outcomes, the wildlife code of practice and the Scottish Parliament elections code of practice. If that period is sufficient for all those very important documents, I do not see a compelling case for making it significantly longer in the case of the inspection plan.

A 40-day period aligns with the period that the Parliament has to annul negative regulations and the period that the committee has for voting on affirmative ones. That includes regulations that are far longer and more complicated than I would expect the inspection plan to be.

I highlight that amendment 92 does not, in fact, confine the reports or resolutions of the Parliament to those that occur during the specified laying period. The amendment has a bit of latitude: as long as the plan is still in draft form at the time when the resolution is passed or the report is issued, it will have to be taken into account. I also note that our working assumptions on commencement are that factoring in the timescale of 60 days excluding recess would leave it almost impossibly tight for the chief inspector to produce the first inspection plan.

As such, although I will remain supportive of the principle of amendment 92 if my amendments 92A and 92B are not agreed to today, I will, in light of the points that I have just made, look to bring the issue back at stage 3 for further consideration. However, I hope that members are willing to support my amendments today.

I thank Ms Duncan-Glancy and Mr Kerr for their amendments. I am pleased to see that we agree on the value of setting out the purposes of inspection in the bill.

The amendments that I have lodged set out clear purposes for inspection, which will ensure that the chief inspector carries out their functions to promote improvement in education and to hold relevant educational establishments accountable for the quality of the education that they deliver. By including a ministerial power to amend the inspection purposes through secondary legislation if those purposes ever need to be changed, my amendments will also allow a degree of flexibility.

It is important to note that I am minded to seek to withdraw amendment 84. Fundamentally, I remain open to further consideration of the purposes of inspection. I have a number of concerns about other members’ amendments in the group, which I will explain in a moment. Although I believe that there are many similarities between those that I have lodged and Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 313, at this point, I cannot support what she has set out, because, as well as making no reference to the importance of accountability, the amendment would appear to extend the chief inspector’s role to providing support for improvement, which would take resource and focus away from their core role, while risking blurring the very boundaries that removing the inspection function from Education Scotland will help to clarify.

I accept the member’s point, but I have a concern that brings me back to the point that Ms Duncan-Glancy rightly raised, which is that the current culture in our schools is not necessarily that which the member has alluded to. We need to work to support that culture through reform.

I welcome the intention behind the amendments lodged by Mr Briggs and Mr Kerr. I understand that the petition that Mr Briggs has alluded to is still under consideration by the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, so I will make no further comment on the specifics.

However, I make it clear that I understand that the existing complaints processes can be perceived as fragmented and complex by complainants. I think that that was the point that Mr Briggs was making, and we should look at what more can be done in that area. Therefore, I propose today to discuss with COSLA and ADES through the recently established education and childcare assurance board—so, outwith the legislative process—the range of issues that have been highlighted in members’ contributions. It would also be pertinent to involve wider stakeholders, such as the General Teaching Council for Scotland, as necessary.

I am more than happy to engage with the committee on that work, if members agree to the proposition. The discussions might lead us to considering proposals such as those put forward by Mr Kerr and Mr Briggs. However, I am not clear at this point that those are appropriate functions for the chief inspector to take on.