Chamber and committees

Flags, yes. Metal badges are also very popular. What is the real and substantial risk? It seems strong-handed; I think that it is strong-handed.

This is my last point, because there are so many issues. It is good that you are here and it is good that you are being so up front with your answers.

Patrick Harvie mentioned issues of enforcement. There is a bit in section 24 of the bill that I could not understand. That might be because I am not a lawyer, but it might be because the whole idea of people forcibly entering premises without a warrant feels really foreign to me. In relation to the merchandise issue that George Adam referred to, section 24(2)(b)(i) says that no warrant is needed if

“the constable reasonably believes that there is a real and substantial risk that delay in seeking a warrant would defeat or prejudice the purpose of taking action”.

In the context of policing, if an officer perceives that there is a risk to life, then they may enter any premises. That is understood. Unless I am not understanding the logic, what is the real and substantial risk of someone having a bunch of scarves or hats? I do not quite get that. [Interruption.] What is the other one?

Does the cabinet secretary not accept, though, that currently there are cultural barriers to people speaking up and reporting or raising concerns, and that the existing procedures have, when used, resulted in individuals feeling that they have effectively committed a career-ending act by speaking up? That reinforces the need for—as Miles Briggs said, and as I said in my own remarks—a body that individuals with genuinely held concerns can approach and seek advice from.

John Mason makes a good point. The issue is not unique to this situation. Whenever there is an evaluation or assessment of a workplace, behaviours would have to be evidenced that demonstrate that certain situations are prevailing. It is not just about opinion. It would be evidenced by, as I say, demonstrated behaviours and reported incidents, because we need to listen to our teachers.

I have a concern, which I will come back to later, that our teachers feel a little beaten down and do not feel sufficiently confident in their own voice to speak up for themselves. The EIS has repeatedly raised concerns about the nature of inspections and how they might lead to the undermining of teacher professionalism, with members reporting that the process is often stressful, unpredictable and poorly aligned with educational priorities.

Amendment 304 is an attempt to address that by asserting that inspections engage with and give weight to the views and professional expertise of educators. It puts their voice at the centre of the inspection. That does not mean that the inspectors must accept, as John Mason says, every view uncritically. It means that they must recognise that teaching is a profession, and that teachers are not merely implementers of policy but reflective practitioners with insight, experience and skill. To go back to my earlier points about school violence, we need to listen more carefully, and directly, to our teachers.

I will move my remarks along, as I can tell that I am testing the patience of the committee, but these are important considerations.

A growing proportion of newly qualified teachers are being placed on temporary or short-term contracts. I understand the business logic behind that, but it is leading to instability in staffing and less consistency for learners. That lack of permanence and continuity undermines a school’s ability to establish and maintain a strong culture of discipline and respect. Younger, more inexperienced staff with limited classroom management experience and minimal job security are being asked to manage increasingly complex behaviours in settings with reduced staffing, fewer classroom assistants and rising levels of need.

It is vital that inspections ensure that not only pupils but teaching professionals are safe and looked after, which is why I have included provision for that in amendment 304. For an inspection to be truly effective, it must assess whether the school has all the skills, expertise and personnel that it needs in order to be successful. There is no point in a school’s having first-class facilities without the correct—or enough—personnel to utilise those.

Amendment 304 requires inspectors to take account of

“the type of employment contract held by teachers and staff in the establishment”

and

“the number of teachers in the establishment who ... are completing probationary service, or ... are newly qualified teachers, having completed their probationary service no more than 5 years before the date of the inspection”.

That is essential to understanding the culture and diversity of experience in a school. If there is no diversity of experience, an establishment is less likely to succeed. We must take that into account when inspecting schools.

Putting all those elements together, including my catch-all at the end of amendment 304, we have a coherent framework that aligns inspection with the broader values and goals of Scottish education: equity, excellence, wellbeing, professionalism and learner empowerment. Without such alignment, inspection risks becoming a hindrance rather than a help. With the elements that I have described, inspection can become a key driver of change and improvement.

I know that I have gone on a bit, but, as members can probably tell, I feel passionately about the opportunity that an independent chief inspector will bring to transform the culture in our schools. It is about not just changing how we inspect our schools but the purpose of inspection; it is about saying that what matters most in Scottish education is not just that our learners achieve but that they thrive, progress and are taught by professionals who are trusted and respected. That is what amendment 304 enshrines. It describes the standard that is worthy of being aspired to. I therefore commend amendment 304 to the committee.

Some of you will be thinking that I am making up for my lack of attendance last Wednesday night, but I genuinely believe in the elements of amendment 304 and I lay it before the committee for your consideration.

The proposal in my amendments is an attempt to address culture transformation, which I think—I hope—we all agree is an important aspect of the bill. If the cabinet secretary thinks that a three-year inspection cycle is too much—although it is not considered so in other parts of the United Kingdom, by the way; I wonder whether she might comment on that—what does she think the frequency of inspections should be? They do not happen every three years at the moment. When she talks about the need for more inspectors and all the rest of it for a three-year cycle, I suggest that the same would be true for the creation of a four or five-year cycle, given the current sporadic nature of inspections.

I am sorry for going on a bit, but it goes back to the point that Pam Duncan-Glancy made: if this is not the place to set the benchmark of frequency, where is? That is my question. What frequency does the cabinet secretary have in mind?

That is not my argument. Amendment 306 lays in statute what the frequency of inspections would be; I am not leaving it up to ministers or anybody else. I still want to put it in the bill, because that way it commands the attention of all concerned.

As I said, I am grateful to colleagues who have intervened to point out the arithmetic of the number of inspections, but we have heard that we do not have inspectors and that we do not have the strength and depth to be able to perform those inspections on anything like the routine basis that they are done in England, for example. I do not want Scottish schools—

Of course.

This is probably going to give you a clue as to how I wish to proceed with the amendments, but where the actual function sits could be the subject of further discussion. To be frank, I am not saying that what is written down in the amendments is the final total of the consideration that might be given to the office of whistleblower.

That is the critical thing. I think that it is very important that this be a clearly designated office. I come back to the old saying about something doing what it says on the tin. If it says on the tin that this is the office of the whistleblower, whistleblowers ought to feel confident, even if it has another title. I accept all of that, and I am open to considering whatever changes might be necessary to provide the basis for legitimising whistleblowing and to make it a means of supporting cultural change in education.

That underpins the importance of what we have in place for NHS Scotland, where we have an independent whistleblower’s office. The people who work in that setting are people who have the experience and professionalism to be able to make an initial judgment based on what they hear, hence the importance of establishing a whistleblowing office.

I accept what the cabinet secretary says about where the office sits, but the bill is still an opportunity to address the issue, and the longer we put it off, the harder it becomes. As we saw with NHS Scotland and health boards, organisations will close ranks to ensure that the process of establishing such an office takes as long as possible.

This is the first of three amendments in my name that relate to the chief inspector’s annual report as a vehicle for ensuring transparency, scrutiny and public confidence in the inspection system. Together, the three amendments represent a way of ensuring that an annual report that is issued by the chief inspector is not simply a retrospective administrative document but a clear, accessible and purpose-driven statement of how the chief inspector has fulfilled their statutory functions and contributed to the continuous improvement of Scottish education.

Amendment 341 provides that the chief inspector must include

“the performance of relevant educational establishments during that financial year”

in their annual report. That would strengthen the current provisions in the bill by giving the annual report shape, focus and relevance, helping to move from passive reporting to active accountability. A robust annual report, laid before Parliament and scrutinised in public, is essential to the culture of transparency that we are trying to build across the education system. It is not enough to carry out inspections; the chief inspector must also explain what has been learned from them, how those lessons are being shared and what changes are being driven as a result.

Recent criticisms of Education Scotland have included concerns about the lack of responsiveness and clarity in how inspection findings are followed up and disseminated. Stakeholders, including teaching unions, parents and local authorities, have all called for a clearer and more meaningful inspection narrative. Amendment 341 ensures that the annual report provides that narrative, offering the Parliament and the public a window into performance and improvement.

That is not only about data; it is about impact. A well-crafted annual report should allow us to understand trends, where practice is improving, where challenges persist and where further support or reform might be required. It provides an opportunity for the chief inspector to reflect, set priorities and help to shape the national conversation about education.

I would like to reference international comparators. In countries such as the Netherlands and New Zealand, the annual reports of school inspectorates are major public documents that contribute directly to education policy and reform. I believe that Scotland must aspire to the same standard, which is what amendment 341 would help to achieve.

The amendment also aligns with the broader expectations of the Muir review and the OECD findings, which highlighted the importance of transparency and public engagement in system governance. An annual report should not be an internal document; it should be a tool of national reflection and improvement.

Amendment 341 would turn the annual report from a statutory formality into a meaningful strategic instrument. It would support the integrity of the inspection system, empower stakeholders and strengthen the public’s confidence in the quality and direction of Scottish education. I urge the committee to consider and support it.

I move amendment 341.