Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is. That degree of flexibility is already happening. As the committee might be aware, Janie McManus’s team is currently leading on work to inspect the improvement function of our local authorities. I have a concern that, in some parts of Scotland, there might not be the support that should exist. Ms McManus is leading on that work, and it is really important. Now that we are recovering from the pandemic, we are looking at the post-pandemic attainment gap and all the challenges that exist in schools, and I need to be sure that our local authorities have the mechanisms in place to help to support our schools. That is not about inspecting establishments—it is about inspecting local authorities’ improvement functions.

I think that the committee also heard evidence from Graham Donaldson on initial teacher education. The inspectorate has the power to inspect that, but it has never been used. However, I am interested in that because, although we do not often debate initial teacher education in the chamber—it does not get the parliamentary coverage that it should—it is integral to delivering quality learning and teaching.

The inspectorate is also carrying out a thematic review of behaviour in Scotland’s schools and a thematic view of maths in relation to numeracy across the curriculum. It does not always narrowly examine institutions through school reports; it can also look across the piece at a range of issues. It is already undertaking that work, and I foresee that being the case in the future, too.

If committee members are of the view that we should stipulate that, I am open to listening to that, but the policy memorandum gives us a bit of—

I have heard some of the teaching trade unions’ views on that issue. It is worth saying that we have increased the number of teachers to four teaching and college professionals. We reflected and wanted to make sure that there was substantive teacher voice in the new body. It is important that we listen to other stakeholders, as Mr Adam set out. Scottish education is always about partnership working, and parents are a key component of that, so it is important that their voice is heard, too.

The trade unions’ view is that we have stipulated four members, and that that does not stipulate a majority. However, it is not as though we have said, “This is the maximum and there cannot be any more.” Others who come from a teaching background may have experience in corporate governance and fulfil other positions on that body. There are still opportunities for teachers to engage outwith the four that we have stipulated.

I discussed that with the chief executive of the GTCS very recently—I think that it was last week or the week before—and I have agreed to meet Disclosure Scotland to discuss it. If it would be helpful, I could write to update the committee on that, because I share the concern that has been raised.

That relates to the point that I made previously about the perception—real or otherwise—that joining the inspectorate with Education Scotland was not good for independence or accountability. Separating the role and legislating for the post gives it objectivity and clarifies roles and accountability for improvement. That is a pretty significant shift.

I was also quite taken by some of the evidence that the committee had from Fife Council—it might have been written evidence—about there being a gap in the system, in that without the annual reports that the chief inspector would have published previously, local authorities do not necessarily have national guidance on their improvement priorities such as used to exist in the system. It is important that we bring that back.

I was also quite taken by evidence that the committee heard from Professor Graham Donaldson, who essentially talked about the challenges in the system just now, and how the role of inspection is meant to address them—it is meant to flag up areas of concern.

Let us take attendance and behaviour: those issues should have been known about and flagged up through inspection reports. There is a wider challenge. It is not necessarily about the legislation but about the purpose of inspection, which is why Janie McManus, the interim chief inspector, is carrying out a review of the inspection framework to ensure that our inspection reports are challenging the system robustly and giving it support where it is needed, and that they are flagging up to the Scottish Government, and to me as cabinet secretary, where the challenges are in the system.

This time last year, we had a range of debates on behaviour. Throughout that time, from the Government’s perspective, the evidence base was quite reliant on the “Behaviour in Scottish Schools 2023” research that was published last November. The most recent report before that was undertaken in 2016, so there was a gap. In that time, I would have expected that inspection reports would have provided challenge and advice to ministers, but that is not necessarily captured in how we currently inspect schools. I suppose that there is a wider question about whether our inspection reports are asking the right things. That is why Janie McManus’s work on the framework is really important.

To go back to Mr Kidd’s original question, legislating to create the post sends a message to the system that we have an independent and impartial chief inspector who will challenge me, as cabinet secretary, and will challenge local authorities, which have the statutory responsibility for education.

The process is very technical. It is also quite unique because, although the post of chief inspector existed previously, it was not legislated for. I am therefore required to complete the process under section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998. We need to work with the United Kingdom Government on that, because it is outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament. We propose that that will be done via a section 104 order, so I need to write to and engage on that with the Secretary of State for Education and with other devolved Administrations. The order is being prepared, alongside passage of the bill, in order to have it ready to be laid in Westminster after the act receives royal assent. We expect completion of the bill process to be in the summer, which will allow the chief inspector’s office to be operational by autumn next year.

As committee members will be aware, we are already undertaking appointment for the chief inspector’s substantive role. It is important to say that Janie McManus is currently in the interim role.

The chief inspector will be accountable to Parliament in the same way as other public roles are accountable to Parliament—for example, through their being called to give evidence at the committee. Additionally, the chief inspector will be required to lay the inspection plan in Parliament. It is a senior civil service appointment, so the approach is very similar to that for other appointments in that space. The Civil Service Commission will also be involved in the process.

No. In my experience, direction is very rarely deployed. I think that I have deployed it only once. We discussed this yesterday: it has been used only eight times, I think. Direction is very rarely used and, when it is used, it is usually at the behest of a senior member of HMIE, who would provide the cabinet secretary with advice.

It might be that a cabinet secretary takes a decision—I think that it has happened in the past—to direct inspection, if issues have been raised with them directly. However, in my experience, the evidence base comes from the inspectorate, which raises concerns with me, and we then act to provide it with the powers to carry out an inspection.

We will still be able to request that inspections be carried out by the chief inspector, but there is quite a significant movement away from ministerial power and towards the chief inspector providing the main thrust of direction.

Yes.

We did not need to legislate for the office of chief inspector, but I chose to do so in order to enhance the inspectorate’s independence from ministers. That independent role and the challenge to Government are really important. If anything, the bill takes ministerial power away and empowers the chief inspector to lead on direction of inspection. They will no longer, for example, as is the case at the current time, need to come to me for permission if they think that they need to carry out an inspection for whatever reason. Therefore, the bill actually dilutes ministerial power.