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.

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.