Seòmar agus comataidhean

We broadly agree on the need to improve the morale and wellbeing of teachers and staff, but I am conscious of how that requirement would interact with the fact that local authorities have a statutory responsibility for the delivery of education; in particular, they—not the Government—employ our teachers. Would there be a conflict in requesting, under amendment 304, assessment and recommendations for improvements relating to the morale and wellbeing of teachers and staff, given that local authorities—not the inspectorate—employ our teachers? I am interested in how that would work in practice.

I am listening to the member develop his points, and I do not deny the importance of all the issues that he is highlighting in relation to amendment 304. However, the issues that he is talking about in relation to additional support for learning, for example, could in themselves form the basis of one inspection, never mind being in addition to, say, a thematic inspection on numeracy. A thematic inspection on numeracy would itself have to adhere to all the requirements that he has stipulated in amendment 304 with regard to

“an assessment of, and any recommendations for, improvements relating to ... discipline policies ... the learning environment”

and so on. Does the member recognise that, if all of that, together with the issues that he is raising in relation to additional support needs, has to be taken into account, it might detract from the purpose of, say, a focused inspection on numeracy, where we have seen challenges in recent years?

I am happy to investigate that with Ms Duncan-Glancy ahead of stage 3. The point that I was making in response to Mr Greer is that we need to be careful about what we do and that we should engage more broadly with stakeholders. I am mindful of the fact that the teaching trade unions, in particular, will have views on the issue, and it is important that those are heard.

I am also cognisant of the issues associated with stipulating, for example, the number of inspections that should be carried out in a school year, which I think that Mr Greer spoke about and which Mr Kerr addresses in his amendments. We need to be mindful of the fact that, by increasing the number of inspections, we might be decreasing the quality of the information that would be made available.

It is not in the gift of the minister alone to make affirmative regulations, which is why, I am advised, there is an issue with the word “must”. However, I would be more than happy to engage with the member on the matter ahead of stage 3, so that we can reach a position that we agree on. I agree with the broader point that she has made.

Amendment 312 would add a requirement that ministers must consult registered teachers, as well as

“persons who appear ... to represent the interests of registered teachers”,

before making regulations about the frequency of inspection. Given that ministers would consider it appropriate to consult such persons in any case, I am happy to support the amendment.

I recognise what Ms Duncan-Glancy is saying, and I would be keen to work with her on that aspect ahead of stage 3. There is much common ground in that area that we can work on, and I hope that, through joint consideration, we can reach a mutually agreeable position.

My concern with Stephen Kerr’s amendment 304 is that it is overly prescriptive. Including amendments of such a nature in the bill would make it difficult for the new chief inspector to develop their role organically and, importantly, it would limit their ability to respond to the changing needs of the education system over time. Although I agree on the importance of each of the issues that he has listed, they are not high-level purposes for the chief inspector to have regard to over the longer term. They would prevent the carrying out of focused thematic inspections by requiring every inspection to cover each of the matters listed. For example, discipline policies would always have to be inspected, 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.

Many of those matters are already included as quality indicators in the “How good is our school?” framework that is currently used by the inspectorate. I hope that that reassures Stephen Kerr that the concerns that his amendment 304 looks to address are currently, and will continue to be, of importance to the chief inspector.

It is important to highlight that the purposes specified in amendment 84 have been consulted on and align with those identified by Professor Muir—which was Pam Duncan-Glancy’s point—and that the drafting delivers a strong position on the purpose of inspection. Notwithstanding that, although I will move amendment 84 for the purpose of opening up this group for debate, I will be happy to seek to withdraw it if Pam Duncan-Glancy does not move her amendment 313, and I suggest that we work to identify an agreed position for stage 3. That will also allow me to ensure that, when we bring the matter back, we address a concern that has been raised by the EIS, which is that it be made clear that the purpose of inspection is to hold to account institutions, not individual teachers, which I agree with.

I urge Stephen Kerr not to move his alternative amendment—amendment 304—and I urge members not to support it if he does.

I move amendment 84.

I will not comment on responsibilities that fall outwith my portfolio, but I take the member’s point on the approach that has been taken in the NHS. My point was about the existing systems, which are important. Members will be well acquainted with the ombudsman. If parents are not content with taking that approach, they can raise with ministers their concerns that a local authority or other responsible body for a school has failed to carry out its statutory duties. If ministers are satisfied that there has been a failure, they can intervene or order the local authority or school to deliver on their duties.

Given the broad framing of the chief inspector’s proposed additional complaints and whistleblowing functions, significant work would need to be undertaken to scope the likely costs of staffing and other resourcing implications, but we anticipate that the costs for both could be substantial. Although I cannot specify the costs at this point, I can say with some certainty that taking on such functions would draw the chief inspector’s focus away from where I firmly believe that it needs to be, which is inspecting the quality of education and using their expertise and judgment to support improvement.

I hope that members agree that the complaints and whistleblowing functions that Mr Briggs and Mr Kerr suggest are not necessarily appropriate for the chief inspector and are likely to have significant resource requirements. Any changes to the processes that exist for raising concerns and the implications of those for children and young people would need to be properly considered and consulted on.

More broadly, my commitment to progress discussion with COSLA, ADES and others and to keep the committee updated on that will, I hope, give members some reassurance that, although I cannot support the amendments, I understand and am cognisant of their underpinning concerns. If amendment 157 is pressed and the other amendments in the group are moved, I ask members to vote against them.

I give the member the reassurance that I am more than happy to have those discussions with COSLA and ADES and to give the committee a fulsome update on the progress being made on those points.

It is important to set out that, as members will be aware, there are clear and very established routes for raising and escalating complaints and concerns within our education system, including through the General Teaching Council for Scotland. I am particularly concerned that layering additional functions on to the chief inspector’s role would risk further complication, which would not be helpful to those with concerns, and would also draw the chief inspector away from their core role in the system.

I understand the member’s point. We have discussed the issue, but one person’s complaint can be another person’s whistleblowing incident. How we identify and determine what might constitute a whistleblowing incident is a challenge, but I take the member’s point—

I take the member’s point that there is a slight difference, but amendment 350 places a corresponding duty on Education Scotland to collaborate with the chief inspector. We discussed some of that last week, but in respect of both amendments, it is relevant that Education Scotland is an executive agency of Scottish ministers. As I have already highlighted in discussions on earlier groups, statutory duties cannot be conferred on such agencies, because they do not have a legal personality separate from that of Scottish ministers. In legal terms, strictly speaking, there is nothing on which that duty would operate.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 318 permits the chief inspector to work with educational establishments and local authorities to co-ordinate support for young people and their parents. That amendment extends the remit of the chief inspector significantly beyond inspecting to support improvement and into the realm of co-ordinating support, including for individuals and their parents. As well as having a significant resourcing implication, it is not at all clear how it would operate with the primary responsibilities of local councils, and it would risk causing confusion. On that basis, I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move those amendments.

I thank members for their amendments. I appreciate that they are intended to secure the quality of education provision, but I have some concerns about their feasibility and the impact that they would have on the chief inspector and the wider education system. Some of those concerns have been raised by members this evening. John Mason spoke about the dramatic increase in the number of inspections that there would be for every school. If we moved to a three-year cycle, we would be securing roughly 800 inspections per year, and there would be even more once non-school inspections were factored in.

When Stephen Kerr says that he is not proposing anything radical, I tend to disagree. I am also intrigued to know what engagement he has had with the teaching trade unions on the proposal. I am sure that they would have some views. He spoke about the inspection being a friendly critical voice, which is somewhat of a contradiction in terms.

Pam Duncan-Glancy spoke about the stress that is associated with inspection, and I am mindful of the fact that, in addition to being inspected by the chief inspector, schools are inspected by local authorities. If we were to increase the number of inspections by having a three-year cycle, would Stephen Kerr expect local authorities to do likewise? Would schools be in a never-ending cycle of inspection by the chief inspector and the local authority, with perhaps only one year off?