Seòmar agus comataidhean

I welcome the intention behind amendments 308, 165 and 332, which look to address recent concerns regarding child protection and safeguarding processes in educational establishments and public bodies. Members will know that protecting children from harm is a key priority for the Government.

I want to talk to the existing practice. His Majesty’s inspectors currently evaluate and report on quality and improvement in Scottish education using the “How good is our school?” framework, or HGIOS, which specifically includes child protection and safeguarding as a quality indicator. If inspectors are concerned about weaknesses in any establishment’s approach to safeguarding, they can return to further evaluate the processes and determine whether that establishment has made improvements. In addition, as we have already discussed in relation to a previous group of amendments, ministers currently have the ability to request a special inspection when there are specific concerns, and that should be the case in the future.

Amendment 88, which I have lodged, looks to give an assurance to stakeholders and the wider system—I think that that is the point that Mr Greer has made—regarding the existing practice for inspecting child protection and safeguarding processes by providing in legislation that the chief inspector must have regard to the need for adequate safeguarding and child protection arrangements in the exercise of all their functions.

As inspectors are not on the ground except when carrying out an inspection, it appears to me that they are not well placed to provide any on-going oversight. The intention of my amendment is therefore not to give the chief inspector oversight of such arrangements, as would appear to be the case in Mr Briggs’s amendment 165, which provides that inspectors would

“oversee the enforcement of child protection and safeguarding measures”.

Notably, as is currently the case in Education Scotland, the chief inspector will have strong links with other audit bodies and inspectorates, and I believe in the importance of listening to children and young people and ensuring that those who deliver education understand the impact that it has. My amendment 88 looks to address both those points, and I strongly encourage all members to support it.

I hope that that clarifies the inspectorate’s current role and that which the chief inspector will continue to have once the post is established, if my amendment is supported. In that context, I do not believe that amendments 308, 165 and 332 are strictly necessary.

More broadly, I note that the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland has indicated support for my amendment in preference to amendments 308 and 332. The commissioner has also indicated that they wish amendment 88 to be strengthened with reference to education authorities. I am pleased to be able to reassure the commissioner that the definition of relevant educational establishments in section 31(1) of the bill already includes education authorities as well as schools and others.

I appreciate that Ms Smith is not here this evening, so I will direct my commentary with regard to amendment 24, on the inspection of school building safety documentation, to Mr Briggs. I believe that the amendment goes beyond the remit of education inspection, although I accept some of the points and the rationale behind what he has said this evening.

HM inspectors are education professionals and would not necessarily have the experience or qualifications to assess the adequacy of building safety documentation. It is also worth noting that, as another member mentioned, health and safety is not devolved to the Scottish Parliament. When a local authority does not comply with regulations, it is for the health and safety executive to determine the severity of that breach and what enforcement action is appropriate. Therefore, I am not able to support those amendments.

I found this group of amendments to be very thought provoking and helpful, and I thank members for their constructive approach and for giving more information this evening about the intention behind each of their amendments.

The upholding of high standards in educational governance and accountability is fundamental to our education system, and Mr Kerr’s amendment 319 helpfully brings that to the fore. I am therefore happy to support the amendment, which will ensure that high standards are not only front of mind for the chief inspector—which I know will be the case—but set out in legislation, too.

As Mr Briggs is not going to move amendment 168, I will move on to amendment 170. I am not of the view that it is quite necessary, on the basis that inspection can—and does—take lots of different forms. Under the current provisions in the bill, the chief inspector will hold autonomy over the types of models to be used in carrying out inspection, including the degree of any inspection. That will be subject to significant consultation—including, quite rightly, with the Parliament.

Furthermore, although the amendment would not require every inspection to be detailed and to cover every aspect of the establishment’s work, the fact is that, in practice, requiring the chief inspector to have regard to the “desirability” of all inspections being “detailed” and all-encompassing might have the unintended consequence of limiting the chief inspector in putting models in place, including those that are agile, proportionate and efficient, and which are based on particular circumstances. For example, the amendment might be unhelpful when it comes to carrying out a special inspection, where ministers have requested the chief inspector to secure the inspection of an establishment in relation to specific issues, when there will be a need to focus specifically on areas of concern.

I am not sure whom to give way to, convener, but I am happy to give way to both members respectively.

On a point of clarification—

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 lodging amendments 331, 175, 25, 177 and 334. I appreciate that members are looking for assurances about particular things that the inspection plan will cover, which is a familiar theme from the previous groups. However, it is my view at the current time that those amendments reflect operational-level decisions that are for the chief inspector to make, and I worry that the amendments would inhibit their independence in that regard. My view is that it would not be appropriate to prescribe that level of detail in legislation. I note that, in their evidence to the committee, both Professor Donaldson and Professor Muir highlighted the risk of hemming in the chief inspector with excessive strictures in legislation.

The inspection plan will, of course, have to be prepared in consultation with the advisory council and others. I will come to Mr Greer’s amendment 92, which would guarantee the committee a voice in that consultation, in a moment. However, my view is that it is much more appropriate for the content to be set by the chief inspector in the light of that consultation, rather than being fixed now in a way that might not always remain appropriate.

For example, there could be a thematic inspection where evidence is sought from a range of schools about a particular aspect such as pupil attendance rates. If evidence was simply being sought from them by email, for example, it would not be an inspection where notice would need to be given in the usual way. However, amendment 331 would implicitly require that some notice of inspection was always given.

That is why we are best to take the view that, as long as the inspection plan is capable of covering all those matters, which it is, we should not set it in stone in primary legislation. I know from my discussions with the inspectorate that that view is supported by the FDA, the trade union representatives and Education Scotland, with whom I discussed the matter only yesterday. I therefore encourage members not to support those amendments.

Mr Briggs’s amendment 176 proposes that we include in the inspection plan the process for making recommendations and also expectations regarding how they should be responded to. I cannot see that changing over time or inadvertently tying the chief inspector’s hands, so I am happy to support that amendment.

I also believe that Mr Greer’s amendments 38 and 39 are useful in making explicit the importance of consultation by both the chief inspector and Scottish ministers, as applicable, with those who might be considered to be representative of educational establishments. Although that might reasonably be assumed to be implicit in the existing provisions, I am happy to support those amendments. We will likely want to return at stage 3 to the mention in amendment 39 of the “Chief Inspector”, which I suspect might be a typo, as I am not sure that it makes sense to have the chief inspector make a judgment call about consultees, given that ministers are the ones with the consultation duty under that provision. However, if Mr Greer wishes to press amendment 39 today, I will be content to support it, and it can be tidied up as necessary.

I move on to the amendments in the group that would require the draft inspection plans to be laid before Parliament. Although I support the principle of amendment 92, I strongly encourage members to support the Government amendments 92A and 92B, which seek to amend the one that Mr Greer has lodged. For operational purposes, 40 days is a much more manageable and proportionate time period. It is also in line with the time periods that are attached to numerous other plans such as the fuel poverty strategy, the national islands plan, the additional support for learning code of practice, the community empowerment national outcomes, the wildlife code of practice and the Scottish Parliament elections code of practice. If that period is sufficient for all those very important documents, I do not see a compelling case for making it significantly longer in the case of the inspection plan.

A 40-day period aligns with the period that the Parliament has to annul negative regulations and the period that the committee has for voting on affirmative ones. That includes regulations that are far longer and more complicated than I would expect the inspection plan to be.

I highlight that amendment 92 does not, in fact, confine the reports or resolutions of the Parliament to those that occur during the specified laying period. The amendment has a bit of latitude: as long as the plan is still in draft form at the time when the resolution is passed or the report is issued, it will have to be taken into account. I also note that our working assumptions on commencement are that factoring in the timescale of 60 days excluding recess would leave it almost impossibly tight for the chief inspector to produce the first inspection plan.

As such, although I will remain supportive of the principle of amendment 92 if my amendments 92A and 92B are not agreed to today, I will, in light of the points that I have just made, look to bring the issue back at stage 3 for further consideration. However, I hope that members are willing to support my amendments today.

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?

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?

In the stage 1 report, the committee recommended that a statement on the purposes of inspection should be included in the bill. I agree on the value of setting out the purposes of inspection, but it is also my view that we need to strike a careful balance to ensure that we do not hinder the flexibility or independence of the chief inspector, which I believe Mr Kerr’s amendment 304 would do. As committee members will know, Professor Muir highlighted the importance of that balance when he gave evidence during stage 1. He advised that the bill should set out only the

“high-level principles in relation to how the inspectorate should operate”,—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 18 September 2024; c 18.]

leaving operational detail to the chief inspector.

As I said earlier, I remain open to further consideration of the topic. I note that Ms Duncan-Glancy raised a pertinent issue in relation to teacher recruitment. She will be mindful of the issues that I raised in response to Mr Kerr about the responsibilities of local government. However, I am also mindful that the inspection plan could set that out as a national focus, for example. The committee will have the opportunity to review the inspection plan and feed into it accordingly.

I intend to press amendment 86, as it is a minor, technical amendment that clarifies how an existing power in section 31 of the bill can be used. That is being done to ensure that the end result is transparent and accessible, with a full definition in one place, rather than a definition being split between the bill, when enacted, and regulations. I will not press my other amendments in the group, and I ask that Mr Kerr and Ms Duncan-Glancy do the same in order to create the opportunity to bring forward a strengthened amendment at stage 3.

Amendment 84, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 30—The inspection function

Amendment 304 not moved.