Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mr Kerr and I have discussed this privately, and I share some of his concerns about the cultural challenges in that respect in our education system. I would not want to apply this sort of thing in any blanket way across the whole school or education system; it will all depend on the school setting, for example, and the people involved. However, I take the member’s general point about the challenges in this space.

I have a number of challenges with regard to amendment 315, which sets out the chief inspector’s whistleblowing function. First of all, it would not fall within the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence, which would risk the bill itself being unable to become law. The scope of the amendment would also risk cutting across the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman’s statutory remit, which, in broad terms, relates to maladministration and service failure.

Mr Briggs’s amendment 166 would require the office of the chief inspector to investigate complaints. Again, it is important to note that there are already established routes for parents, teachers and others who want to raise concerns about a child’s education provision. The delivery of education and the duty to secure improvement are primarily the responsibility of councils.

Although I appreciate the intention behind amendments 337 and 338, I have concerns about their impact on the independence of the chief inspector, if they are agreed to. I have always been clear about the importance of ensuring that the chief inspector is able to operate independently, set inspection priorities and be independent in their findings. The bill’s current provisions give the chief inspector the power to decide on the format and content of each inspection report; indeed, the provisions have been specifically drafted that way to ensure that the chief inspector has the flexibility to report as they see fit.

It is also significant that, when Professor Muir gave evidence to the committee, he expressed concern that the inspector could become dominated by reporting, which is a risk that I believe these amendments could exacerbate. I also note that the chief inspector is highly likely to continue the practice of thematic inspections—which we have discussed in relation to other groups this evening—whereby a number of establishments might be inspected only on a particular aspect. Amendment 337, when taken with amendment 304 in group 26, would prevent that from being possible, as it would require every matter listed in amendment 304 to be covered in each inspection report. For example, discipline policies would always have to be reported on, as would the employment contracts held by teachers, even when those aspects were not relevant to the theme that the chief inspector wanted to examine.

On amendment 338, it is, of course, right that judgments in inspection reports should always be based on sound reasons, but insisting that “full reasons” be included in every report would risk bogging down the chief inspector in legalistic discussions about what “full reasons” would constitute, as well as limiting their ability to make judgments about what was important, rather than peripheral, to include in reporting. For those reasons, I ask members not to support amendments 337 and 338.

In relation to Mr Briggs’s amendment 181, although I am supportive of the chief inspector making recommendations to strengthen areas for improvement, it might not always be appropriate to set out all the recommendations in a published report. For example, there might be concerns that a specific recommendation could inadvertently lead to the identification of an individual child or young person in a small school. However, I believe that there is merit in looking at the issue further, and I ask the member to work with me on it ahead of stage 3.

Similarly, I see Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 339 as being useful. It would, of course, be right for the chief inspector to

“have regard to any representations made by”

staff in the establishment under inspection, and I am happy to support the inclusion of that in the bill.

On Mr Greer’s amendment 40, which would require the chief inspector to publish child-friendly versions of all inspection reports and other accessible versions that are appropriate to those receiving education at the establishment in question, I appreciate the member’s good intentions, although I am not sure how many children and young people currently engage with school inspection reports. As cabinet secretary, I read them regularly, and I do think that we will want to make them accessible.

More broadly, although that is my intention, I believe that amendment 40 is unnecessary and, importantly, its inclusion could accidentally weaken what is already covered in the bill. Section 49 already contains a requirement for the chief inspector to

“have regard”

when publishing documents

“to the importance of communicating in a way that best meets the needs of ... children and young people ... users of the Gaelic language”

and

“others affected by the exercise of the Chief Inspector’s functions.”

I am concerned that adding something bespoke in relation to inspection reports could inadvertently undermine section 49 by implying that it is not already suitably covered in all reports. On that basis, I ask Mr Greer not to move amendment 40.

On amendment 11, sending copies of inspection reports to establishments before they are published is already current practice in the existing inspectorate. Indeed, I further clarified that point yesterday when I met the trade union representatives from Education Scotland whom I mentioned earlier. That said, I do understand the member’s desire to secure the practice in legislation.

There is a bit of a risk, though, in setting out such a level of operational detail in legislation, particularly for thematic inspections, where reports might cover many different establishments with a diverse range of needs. I therefore cannot support amendment 11. However, I ask Mr Greer to agree to work with me to find a more suitable alternative ahead of stage 3.

On amendments 18 and 19, I sympathise with Mr Greer’s good intentions in seeking to ensure compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. However, I have some concerns about those amendments, the most significant of which is that asking the chief inspector to assess how UNCRC requirements are being met would essentially be asking them to perform what is, and must remain, a function of the courts.

There are also other issues with amendments 18 and 19, such as the fact that not every relevant educational establishment would be subject to UNCRC requirements. However, more significantly, there are important complexities in how the UNCRC act applies, given that, for the purposes of that act, a “relevant function” is one that is conferred in legislation by the Scottish Parliament.

Significant parts of the functions of education authorities are also conferred by the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Those are not “relevant functions” under the UNCRC act, so the prohibition on public authorities acting incompatibly does not apply in relation to those functions. However, the UNCRC requirements apply to other functions of education authorities, including those conferred by the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000 and the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004.

Amendments 18 and 19 would require the chief inspector to make complex and nuanced judgments as to which aspects of an educational establishment’s service provision are done in pursuance of a “relevant function” in respect of those aspects to which a public authority’s duty under section 6 of the UNCRC act applies, and those to which it does not apply. Those would be important judgments to get right, and amendments 18 and 19 would appear to add layers of legal risk to the chief inspector’s inspection activities. That would be likely to require significant resources and might cause delays in the preparation and publication of inspection reports.

I therefore ask Mr Greer not to move amendments 18 and 19. However if he still wishes to do something in that space, I believe that setting out some specific requirements might be more likely in practice to have the effect that he desires. I ask that he works with me on the drafting of such an amendment for stage 3.

On Mr Greer’s amendment 20, it would not be proportionate or a good use of staff time to require every establishment to read and review every single inspection report when it is published. My current expectation is that there will be about 250 reports a year. There are just 260 weekdays in each year, and school holidays take that to 195 working days a year. Therefore, more than one report would have to be reviewed on each working day. I am conscious that the committee has given itself 60 days to review the chief inspector’s report.

One purpose of the report on performance of education in Scotland will be to share key lessons that are of wider relevance, which will be sufficient to ensure that lessons are suitably drawn.

On that basis, I ask Mr Greer not to move amendment 20. However, I am supportive of the principle behind his amendment 21 in an upcoming group, which is confined to reports on the performance of education establishments.

I am coming to that exact point now, Mr Kerr.

I am more open to discussing the intention behind Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments. Given the importance of inspection in the school system, in particular, it is an interesting proposition that ministers should set the frequency of the inspection of schools and other educational institutions, as amendment 309 suggests. That said, there could be potential downsides to it. There is a potential risk that, in focusing on the frequency and the number of inspections, we might lose sight of the trade-off that there might be with quality and appropriate focus. Hypothetically speaking, could the chief inspector, faced with a ministerial stipulation about how frequently schools should be inspected, seek to meet that requirement by carrying out a light-touch, simple inspection model, which might not always be appropriate?

I am also mindful of the fact that Professor Muir made no recommendation on the frequency of inspection in his report and that the associated consultation offered varying views from respondents.

I will come on to talk about Daniel Johnson’s bill, because we need to be mindful that the bill before us is not focused on restraint, and I would be concerned about potential adverse consequences of legislating for that aspect outwith Mr Johnson’s bill.

Daniel Johnson’s Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill will give all MSPs an opportunity to consider in the round how restraint is reported and monitored—which I think is the point that Mr Briggs rightly makes—across a variety of settings before reaching an agreement on whether further legislative change is needed. I am carefully considering the provisions in Daniel Johnson’s bill. Mr Briggs mentioned my interaction with Beth Morrison, and I have engaged with a number of other parents in relation to concerns around restraint. I will continue to engage with Mr Johnson and with members on all sides of the chamber as his bill progresses. However, I ask members to resist supporting Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments in this group, if she moves them, in order to allow this important issue to be considered holistically in the context of Daniel Johnson’s bill. For those reasons, I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move her amendments.

On that point, I note that parliamentary recesses are not counted in the stipulated 40 days.

In my comments to Ms Duncan-Glancy, I have talked about some of the substantive changes that have happened at the SQA in recent months. I hope that the member will at least recognise that. I am not convinced of the need for all members of the current board to reapply six months after the organisation comes into being. That would create a real challenge for the stability of the organisation. It is stepping up and responding to the challenges that we all know exist in relation to our qualifications system. It has to get on with the job, and it has to be ready to do that. I am just not convinced of the proposal in amendment 351, and I am not sure that Ms Duncan-Glancy will convince me that a different timescale would help.

The Government has not begun any recruitment to qualifications Scotland, because that organisation does not exist yet. We have recruited to the SQA. I just wanted to put that on the record.

I take the point that Sue Webber has made and the aspiration that she sets out, but my concern is that, as currently drafted, the amendment might limit the chief inspector’s functions. I am happy to have further discussions with Ms Webber ahead of stage 3, if that would be helpful.

I see merit in Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 321, 323 and 358, but my view is that the bill already contains provisions that will ensure that the chief inspector takes account of views and priorities that are vital to the education system—for example, through the views of the advisory council. I have specific concerns about the part of amendment 321 that would require the chief inspector to have regard to the views of the Scottish Parliament’s education committee. We discussed that issue extensively in the debate on group 11, when the views that Mr Mason and Mr Whitfield shared led to Mr Greer not moving amendment 60. Although it is reasonable to assume that the chief inspector would already have regard to the committee’s views, I believe that setting out a direct requirement in legislation would set an unhelpful precedent. We have all been concerned to ensure that the chief inspector is suitably independent—quite rightly so—and I believe that such a move risks undermining that independence.

I thank Ms Duncan-Glancy for explaining the purpose of her amendment, but, for the reasons that I will set out, I cannot support it. I understand that the amendment stems from concerns that the leadership that has presided over the SQA would transfer to qualifications Scotland. I assure the member and other members that I remain committed to ensuring that we have the right leadership for qualifications Scotland.

That process has already started with the appointment of Shirley Rogers as the chair of the SQA. She has provided invaluable leadership and has ensured that the SQA is delivering its functions and embracing reform. I hope that members will agree that it is critical that we have continuity of leadership.

Building on that, we have also approved leadership changes in the form of the appointment, in autumn 2024, of five new board members to the SQA board. I made those appointments to bring additional teaching and college experience to the board, alongside other skills that are invaluable in supporting the transition. Those members were recruited on the basis that they, too, would become members of qualifications Scotland.

Amidst such progress to refresh the leadership, Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment would risk bringing many practical challenges by requiring that board members who transfer to the new board would have their appointments terminated and would need to reapply. We would run the risk that some members might choose not to reapply, which would risk qualifications Scotland losing valuable skills and experience at a time when it needs them most. We also know that appointment rounds do not always yield the results that we hope for.

I am mindful, too, of the need, as we discussed previously, to ensure that the board is compliant with the minimum membership numbers and the criteria that the bill will establish, and of the need to ensure that it can function within the law.

I very much recognise that there are calls for further legislation in this area. However, although the amendments are obviously very well intentioned, I am not able to support them. We accept, of course, that there needs to be a robust system in place to monitor restraint where there is education provision in secure centres, but the amendments do not recognise the unique set-up of those centres or, in particular, the difficulties in distinguishing between care and education providers.

Notably, the Care Inspectorate has a vital role in undertaking the inspection of secure accommodation. I have, therefore, lodged my own amendment 88, which was debated in a previous group, to require the chief inspector to have regard to

“the need for relevant educational establishments to have adequate arrangements in place to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and young people”.

That flexible provision is intended to cover the use of restraint.