Seòmar agus comataidhean

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 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 thank all members for their contributions on this group of amendments. It is clear that we all agree on the importance of effective collaboration and working among national organisations across the education system. Indeed, that has been a central aspect of our education reform programme as it relates to our national education infrastructure.

My amendment 87 seeks to emphasise the importance of that while not being overly prescriptive, and allowing for future developments. I see Mr Briggs’s amendment 169 as unnecessary, given the existing obligations on all public bodies, to which I have alluded. However, as I have said, I will not stand in the way of the amendment if he chooses to move it, as I think that he will.

However, I am not able to agree with Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments. As I mentioned previously, amendments 317 and 350 relate inappropriately to an executive agency of Government and do not take account of the fact that that might change over time. I see amendment 318 as more problematic, as it would take the chief inspector into an area in which they would have no role—that is, the co-ordination of support for individuals. I think that Ross Greer made that point, too.

I ask members to support amendments 87 and 169, and I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move her amendments 317, 350 and 318.

Amendment 87 agreed to.

Amendments 165 to 167 and 315 to 318 not moved.

Section 34—Duty when exercising functions

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.