Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a lot of sympathy for Mr Kerr’s amendment 315. Amendment 348, on the requirement to report, concerns me more, given that I hope—as I think that we would all hope—that, at least in some years, a relatively small number of complaints would be made via the proposed process. My worry is that, when we are talking about a small number of complaints that would have to be coalesced into a published report, the requirements on reporting that are in the amendment would be hard to reconcile with a need to make sure that there is absolute anonymity for whistleblowers and no prospect of jigsaw identification.

Amendments 38 and 39 are relatively simple amendments. Amendment 38 seeks to strengthen provisions in relation to the chief inspector and amendment 39 seeks to strengthen provisions in relation to the Scottish ministers. The amendments concern the range of groups that the chief inspector must consult in preparing the inspection plan and that the minister must consult when bringing forward the relevant regulations.

The wording that I have used in the amendments is

“such persons as the Chief Inspector considers representative of relevant educational establishments”—

that is, they should consult a representative range of schools in particular, although there are other establishments under the inspectorate’s purview. I chose the wording to make it clear that the expectation is not that they must consult every school in Scotland before engaging in the process, but that they will consult a representative group thereof and organisations that represent their interests.

With amendment 92, I am trying to address some of the concerns and areas of really important disagreement in the committee and in Parliament on where the inspectorate should sit and who it should be accountable to. Without going back to the previous debate about the independence of the inspectorate, I note that the amendment will require the chief inspector to lay a draft inspection plan before Parliament for 60 days. Parliament can then give feedback on the plan, and the chief inspector must have regard to that feedback. The feedback will not be mandatory. We can be open and honest about the fact that Parliament is not always right, but our feedback should be taken seriously nonetheless, and any resolution that is passed by Parliament should be given due regard. The amendment is intended to address the concern about parliamentary oversight of the inspectorate and how it goes about its duties.

I urge committee members to oppose the cabinet secretary’s amendments 92A and 92B, which seek to shorten the timescale from 60 to 40 days. We should all reflect on the capacity challenges that Parliament and committees face, and 60 days is my attempt at a compromise. Originally, I was more inclined towards 90 or 120 days. The inspection plan is not a document that should ever be produced in a rush or with urgency. There should be time to consider it, and 60 days will strike the right balance. I recognise the concerns about having a period of 90 or 120 days, but 60 days strikes an appropriate balance, while 40 days would provide challenges to Parliament, particularly given that, as we are all aware, circumstances often dictate that we must turn our attention to other matters. The impact of the situation at the University of Dundee on this committee’s work plan is an example.

For those reasons, I hope that members will support amendment 92, but I cannot support amendments 92A or 92B.

I take the cabinet secretary’s point in relation to the cross-over between amendment 321 and the one that I did not move in an earlier group. However, when it comes to how I will vote on amendment 321, if it is moved, it would certainly give me some comfort if the cabinet secretary were able to jump ahead a little bit and indicate the Government’s position on my amendment in a later group—that is, amendment 92, which relates to consultation with the Parliament in preparing the inspection plan and would require the chief inspector to lay a draft of the plan before Parliament for 60 days. If the Government were to agree to that, it would build in direct engagement between the chief inspector and the Parliament without getting entangled in the issues that we explored in relation to my amendment 60.

I acknowledge that amendments 317 and 350 will not be moved, because of the drafting issue, but my broader concern about all the amendments in the group is that they go against the direction of travel in the bill. Although, in certain circumstances, collaboration is not just desirable but is what the OECD has told us that we need more of in Scottish education, what we are seeking to do here is to split the inspectorate from Education Scotland, because of the inherent conflict of interest.

I worry about the language in amendment 317, which is that the chief inspector

“must ... work in collaboration with Education Scotland”

on any matters to which their functions relate. However, that will relate to most of their functions, as they are both education bodies. Does that not go against what we are trying to do in the bill, which is to create a degree of separation that we hope will allow the inspectorate to be more robust in its feedback and observations about the system?

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s comments. I am happy not to move amendment 20. We will come to that later amendment on the reports that the inspector will publish on the wider system. I entirely take the cabinet secretary’s point about the drafting of amendment 20. The intention was not to make relevant establishments have due regard to every report—that is, to include reports that are published on other establishments—but to ensure that an establishment would have due regard to any report that is published about itself. Does the cabinet secretary agree that there is perhaps space to agree something for stage 3 to ensure that a school gives due regard to any inspectorate report about that school?

Thank you. Unless anyone has anything else to add on that, I will ask just one more question, because I am conscious of the amount of time that I have already taken up.

Damien, you have touched on the issue of TUPE costs for staff. Given that what we are talking about will largely be a transfer from SDS to the SFC, do you feel that you have had clarity from ministers—I want to find out whether Martin Boyle feels the same way—on the operational arrangements for the transfer of staff and the expectations regarding costs, the TUPE element, terms and conditions and so on?

Martin, what is your response to Audit Scotland’s reflections and the progress that has been made since then?

Before he does, I note that that is all very welcome, because the committee has, in the past, been critical of the Scottish Government’s lack of clear leadership and direction on the skills agenda but, as I said, that was only part of Audit Scotland’s criticism. The other part was about the lack of an effectively functioning relationship between SDS and the SFC, with poor communication, a lack of consensus and so on. Reaching consensus is obviously easier when both bodies receive the same ministerial direction. However, that aside—because it sounds as though the announcement in the next few weeks will provide a clear ministerial direction—have you addressed the issues that Audit Scotland raised about what was a dysfunctional relationship between the two bodies?

I would like to go back to the convener’s initial line of questioning on the premise for the bill and the reform, which Damien Yeates and the SDS board, in essence, reject. However, in 2022, Audit Scotland published a scathing report on the lack of skills alignment. The report partly criticised the lack of leadership from the Scottish Government, but the stand-out criticism was of the inability of SDS and the SFC to work together. The report’s third conclusion was clear:

“Current arrangements are unlikely to achieve the ambitions for skills alignment at the pace required”.

Could you reflect on that Audit Scotland report? We are three years on from the report, so have the issues relating to communication and lack of consensus between SDS and the SFC been addressed?

Thanks very much, both. That is really useful.