Seòmar agus comataidhean

As I have intimated, I will be happy to work with the member on that exact point ahead of stage 3.

I thank members for their explanations of the purposes of their amendments.

I understand and am sympathetic to the intentions behind Mr Kerr’s amendments 346 and 347, on reporting content. The provisions in the bill as introduced are intended to strengthen the independence of the chief inspector by giving them the flexibility to report on matters as they see fit.

Although Mr Kerr’s amendments would, to an extent, risk limiting the flexibility of the chief inspector in that regard, it is likely that the chief inspector would include some reference to the topics that are set out in Mr Kerr’s amendments in their report. However, I believe that we need to be careful to maintain the boundary between inspection and policy and not draw the chief inspector beyond their role of independent evaluation into policy making by default.

For example, if the Government adopted policy recommendations from the chief inspector, how could the chief inspector then be seen to evaluate them objectively? That would risk opening the door to charges of them marking their own homework. In any case, the amendments would not quite work in their current form, as the wording would need to be limited to education policy in Scotland in so far as it relates to the chief inspector’s functions. I ask Mr Kerr not to press or move these amendments but to work with me ahead of stage 3 to address the points that his amendments attempt to cover.

On Mr Greer’s amendment 21, I would very much expect establishments to have regard to the report on the performance of the Scottish education system in any case. The current wording of the amendment is somewhat problematic in that it would require establishments to have regard to all of the reports that had ever been published under section 39—even ones that had become out of date. I hope that Mr Greer is open to my suggestion that we work together on a reworded version of the amendment ahead of stage 3.

I agree that Mr Greer’s amendments 14, 15 and 16 would be helpful in aligning the reporting cycle of the annual report with the academic year, and his amendments 93 and 112 would include a power enabling ministers to amend that cycle through regulations, should that be required in the future. I am therefore happy to support those amendments and I urge members to vote in favour of them.

I cannot support amendment 341. It might be helpful to clarify that the chief inspector will have to produce two annual reports. The first annual report will be on the chief inspector’s activities over the course of the preceding year, to which amendment 341 relates. The intention is to provide ministers, Parliament and the wider education system with an overview of the work that the chief inspector has undertaken.

The second annual report will be the report on the performance of Scottish education. It is in this report that the chief inspector will set out their views, based on the performance of individual establishments that have been inspected, on the overall performance of Scotland’s education system.

I believe that Mr Kerr’s amendment is unnecessary, as what he is looking for will already exist in the annual report on the performance of the education system. For that reason, I ask Mr Kerr not to press amendment 341.

I have been discussing the matter with officials. The issue pertains to the use of the word “must”, which presumes that Parliament would grant the cabinet secretary or the minister of the day the permission to make the regulations in question. We have to give Parliament the final say in relation to the use of the word “must”. I cannot compel Parliament—Parliament has to decide. That is my difficulty with amendment 309, which is why I said to Ms Duncan-Glancy that I would be happy to work with her on her amendment such that we can all agree on it and Parliament can be given its place in making that decision, because that is not for me to dictate. I hope that that gives the member some reassurance.

Will the member take an intervention?

The member will recall that there is already stipulation in the legislation for the inspection plan to set out

“the period to which the plan applies”

and

“the frequency with which different types of relevant educational establishments, other than excepted establishments, will be inspected”.

Frequency is already covered in the bill, but it is under the power of the chief inspector, who will stipulate it in the inspection plan, which will then be laid in Parliament, and the education committee will be able to interrogate that plan. As I understand it, that power currently rests with the chief inspector, not with ministers. Is the member content to give that power to ministers? Does he not trust the chief inspector to stipulate the frequency of school inspections?

There is nothing to preclude the chief inspector from stipulating that in the inspection plan. That is already provided for in the bill. The matter rests with the chief inspector. I understand the member’s point, which is that he wants to give that power to ministers and take it away from the chief inspector. It is arguable that doing so weakens the strength of the committee in interrogating the inspection plan, because the bill is currently drafted to allow for that.

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.