Chamber and committees

Of course, that is the whole point of this. I appreciate that. The significant thing, as I understand it from the 2020 legislation, is there was not one conviction.

That is useful to know. I note that busking is also there.

I am not seeing—

That is a fair point and I accept it as such. There is a famous old adage that, if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

If there is a singular need in our education system right now, it is to provide a friendly critical voice to educationalists and school leaders, to allow them the opportunity for improvement and change. Providing that through inspection is a critical benchmark opportunity. If it is done in the right way, with the right cultural approach—which is the theme that I and many others keep coming back to—it might, as opposed to what happens in other jurisdictions, become an experience and an opportunity that school leaders and teachers look forward to. I know that the cabinet secretary, given her professional experience, is perhaps enjoying that comment rather too much. However, at the end of the day, if someone is leaning in to help and support you with the challenges that you have professionally, that is usually seen as a good thing.

It would be a really positive benefit of the bill if we established an inspections culture whereby school leaders, teachers and other staff felt that they were going to get some benefit—directly, professionally and personally, in their work environment—through an inspection. Although that perhaps sounds to some people’s ears like an ambition that might be beyond reach at the moment, I do not think that it should be. We should be planning a culture change with the new office that we are establishing, which means that that is the appropriate attitude to be brought to every inspection.

I am sorry that the committee has to listen to me again, but it just so happens that the amendments that have come up are in my name.

I agree with what Ross Greer said. It is not about dealing with complaints; it is about raising serious concerns—specifically, concerns that rest within the public interest remit in the statutory definition of whistleblowing.

It is important that I declare an interest. I have a long-standing connection with WhistleblowersUK, which is a not-for-profit organisation that supports whistleblowers. It is also a campaigning group that seeks to change the law to provide proper protections for whistleblowers. The issue has been a long-term interest of mine, because I genuinely believe that whistleblowers can be a positive antidote to some of the toxicity that can arise in closed cultures.

Amendments 315 and 348 are not merely about improving administrative processes; they are also about sending a powerful message about culture, trust and integrity in our schools and educational bodies. We must legislate not only for structures but for values. Among those values must be the protection of truth-telling, the safety of those who speak up and the accountability of institutions to those they serve. Amendments 315 and 348 seek to provide those values.

The amendments are not intended to be small bureaucratic changes. They are about encouraging moral courage, institutional integrity and the creation of a culture in which staff at all levels feel safe to speak up when they see that something is wrong and that it is in the public interest that they do so.

To be clear, whistleblowing saves systems from failure. It is not a nuisance that is to be tolerated and it is not disloyalty. It is the front-line defence of standards and safety. It means protecting the public interest and ensuring that the best interests of pupils, parents and the wider public are safeguarded at all times. That is particularly vital in education, and I believe that the cabinet secretary appreciates that. Schools are closed environments, power is hierarchical—that is particularly true in an educational establishment—and cultures can and do become toxic. When issues such as mismanagement, safeguarding failures, curriculum malpractice and the bullying of staff or pupils arise, the instinct too often, sadly, is to deny, deflect or retaliate.

In recent years, we have seen, tragically and repeatedly, what happens when staff feel that they cannot speak up. Across the public sector, we have seen whistleblowers suffer for doing the right thing. Careers have been ended, reputations have been shattered, and isolation, stress and even mental breakdown have followed. In many cases, the underlying issues were eventually proven to be real. We will all have had constituency casework that relates to the examples that I am citing.

The education sector is no different. Teachers, support staff and senior leaders across Scotland have shared—often anonymously—stories of having tried to raise concerns about child safety, exam integrity and leadership failures, only to be warned off, ignored or subject to disciplinary action. The Scottish Parliament has an opportunity in the bill to act to prevent that culture from persisting. We must, united, send a message that whistleblowing is not a betrayal but is a form of professional leadership. It is an expression of ethical responsibility and an act of service in defence of the public interest.

The amendments are modelled in part on the independent national whistleblowing officer, or INWO, role that was established in the national health service in Scotland in 2021. That role provides a clear, safe and structured route for NHS staff to raise concerns about wrongdoing or malpractice in their workplace. It guarantees that those concerns will be treated with seriousness, confidentiality and fairness, and it sits outside the management hierarchy.

Why should teachers, classroom assistants, early years workers and college lecturers be afforded any less protection? The argument for parity is overwhelming. The stakes in education are no less high than in health. Learner safety, wellbeing and outcomes depend on the honesty and responsiveness of institutions. The public trust that is placed in our schools is immense. When that trust is breached, the system must not silence or sideline those who speak up; it must embrace them. For the sake of pupils, for the peace of mind of parents and for the reputation of public education as a whole, we must protect the right to speak up in the public interest.

It is right that I mention the psychological and career toll that unprotected whistleblowing can take. Too many professionals who have spoken up have found themselves subtly or not so subtly punished—excluded from promotion, subject to hostile appraisals, moved between schools or stripped of informal support. Often, their colleagues fall silent for fear of guilt by association. Whistleblowing, in those instances, is a lonely and painful road. It should not be so. If the Scottish education system is to retain talented and ethical professionals, it must ensure that raising a concern does not become a career-ending decision. My amendments embed that principle.

My intention in the amendments is to create a whistleblowing framework, which is a practical and powerful way to reassure potential whistleblowers that the listening is real and to give every professional a route to be heard, even when their line management has failed them.

The approach is fully consistent with the direction of travel in Scottish public life. The whistleblowing officer role in the NHS, which I mentioned, was created following decades of failure in healthcare, with staff knowing about risks but feeling unable to speak. The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, under whose auspices the INWO sits, has made it clear that every sector should have whistleblowing protections that are tailored to the sector’s structures and culture, and my amendments seek to say loudly that it is time for education to follow.

I will expand on something that Ross Greer said earlier. Some people might say that we already have grievance procedures and staff complaint schemes. I would argue that those are not enough, because grievance procedures are internal and subject to management discretion. They are often used against whistleblowers. They do not have the independence, transparency or moral authority that whistleblowing frameworks require.

Other people might ask whether a whistleblowing framework will encourage vexatious complaints, but experience shows otherwise. Where whistleblowing systems are well designed, vexatiousness is rare, and it can be identified and addressed. The answer to misuse is not to deny use. The answer to due process is not silence.

Some may worry about workload or bureaucracy. Again, the NHS model shows that whistleblowing offices can operate efficiently when there are clear thresholds, defined procedures and proportionate oversight. They do not need to be large or costly; they need to be credible and trusted.

The moral case to support the amendments is clear. The policy precedent in the NHS is strong and the bill is the legislative vehicle to bring in what the amendments propose. We must now act. The amendments are not just about good governance; they are statements of values. They say to every teacher, learning assistant and administrator, “If you see something wrong, we want you to tell us. We will listen. We will protect you. We will act.” That is the message that the amendments send and the infrastructure that amendment 348 would provide. Together, the amendments offer Scotland a national education system that is open, honest and accountable from the inside out.

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.

I understand—or I think that I understand—the cabinet secretary’s point. I am not seeking, through amendment 304, to restrict an inspector’s ability to inspect schools in the way that they, as an independently operating agent, feel is appropriate to the establishment that they are in. However, there are some issues common to the education system that deserve a proper underpinning in statute to ensure that they are looked at and that there is an independent voice speaking truth to power—to Parliament and Government—about what is happening in our schools, without fear or favour.

I understand the discomfort about there being too much detail in the amendment, but if there is not sufficient understanding of what the detail leads to, we are no further forward. It is great that we will have an independent inspector. My party, among others, has campaigned for that development, which I think we welcome, but at the same time, we need to be sure that the inspections are of a nature and a culture, and have sufficient elements, to address the fundamental issues that we all know exist in the system.

I will move on to the next pillar, which is the morale and wellbeing of teachers. I know that the cabinet secretary is well aware that that is a fundamental issue, the root causes of which we would probably all broadly agree on. Including the morale and wellbeing of teachers is deliberate on my part. I believe that it is a necessary cultural intervention, which I will come back to with my later amendments.

I imagine that John Mason has a point, but, in effect, he makes my point for me, because it has now become a feature of teacher employment that a large number of teachers have no permanent employment contract. As I will come on to, that creates all kinds of problems for those professionals—they are professionals—who cannot get on with the rest of their lives. They cannot establish themselves financially, and they cannot apply for certain products that might require them to have a permanent position of employment.

I understand why John Mason offers his intervention, but my amendment is grounded in the experiences of teachers and covers an issue that we should address.

Amendment 304 also provides that an inspection must cover

“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”.

Those issues have been well covered in the chamber and elsewhere.

Finally, the amendment states:

“such other matters as the Chief Inspector considers appropriate.”

I am not seeking to be overly prescriptive, which is why that line in the amendment is included. I want the chief inspector to be fully independent and completely free to make observations and reports in relation to the broad remit that they will have in carrying out their function.

The first pillar of amendment 304 is

“the implementation and effectiveness of discipline policies”.

I make no apology for raising the rising incidence of violence and disruption in Scottish schools, which is affecting staff and students. The Scottish media has recently reported a disturbing surge in classroom violence, including assaults on teachers, support staff and even other pupils. There are such headlines in all our news outlets—The Courier, the Daily Record and BBC Scotland all speak of a discipline crisis in schools, with staff describing their daily exposure to aggression and fear.

It is therefore vital that the implementation and effectiveness of discipline policies are monitored and that—this is the critical point—good practice is shared and concerns are highlighted and remedied. I think that we all agree on the point, which I made in our earlier debate, that school leadership is a critical factor in the learning environment, particularly for discipline. It is therefore a crucial observation that school discipline is contingent on the quality of the learning environment, which is the second part of amendment 304, so it ought to be at the forefront of consideration during an inspection.

Education is not only about academic performance; it is about the development of healthy and resilient young people. That is what the curriculum for excellence and the pillars are all about. Concerns arise about whether the learning environment is dealing with the whole person, rather than just one aspect. I acknowledge that that is the danger of league tables, which highlight one aspect of a school’s performance, perhaps without any recognition or cognisance of the other issues that create a holistic learning environment.

The recent mental health crisis among young people has brought the issue into stark relief. Multiple reports across all forms of media have highlighted increased numbers of referrals to child and adolescent mental health services, long waiting times for mental health support and a growing number of pupils disengaging from school altogether. We have frequently discussed non-attendance at school, which is at critical levels. School staff who are already overstretched are often the first responders to mental distress, but they are rarely recognised or supported in that role. Those factors all contribute to the learning environment.

An inspection framework that ignores wellbeing is therefore out of step with the reality in schools and the priorities, as I understand them, of Scottish Government policy, including the national performance framework. By including wellbeing explicitly in the inspection criteria, amendment 304 will ensure that we evaluate not just what is taught but how young people experience their education. Are they safe? Are they supported? Are they thriving?

I will speak only to my amendment 319 and in support of amendment 170, in the name of Sue Webber. These are short but significant amendments that seek to align the operation of the new inspection system with the highest standards of transparency, inclusion and responsiveness. They sit pretty comfortably with the debate that we have just had on the previous group.

Amendment 319 would require the chief inspector, in exercising any of their functions, to do so in a way that ensures effective communication and engagement with all stakeholders in the education system, including learners, parents, carers, educators, education authorities and national bodies, on the foundational principle that those who are affected by public service delivery should have the opportunity to engage meaningfully with how those services are scrutinised and improved. The amendment would bring that principle into the heart of the chief inspector’s statutory duties.

Amendment 170, which I support, complements that by requiring the chief inspector to

“consider all areas of work by the educational establishment”

and to

“consider outcomes for persons undertaking qualifications in the educational establishment”.

I refer to the OECD review of the curriculum for excellence, which noted that stakeholders in Scotland often feel disconnected from national agencies in decision making. It recommended stronger consultation, co-construction and dialogue, and the amendments would operationalise that vision. Similarly, the Muir review made it clear that national bodies must engage more directly and transparently with schools and communities, that that engagement must be structured and not ad hoc, and that it must be part of how the chief inspector operates and not a box-ticking exercise. That is what amendment 319 would achieve.

I am concerned about the cabinet secretary’s latter comments in relation to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 309 and its use of the word “must”. Unless the word “must” is used, there will be no need for ministers to do anything. What the minister has said means that Parliament has no way of creating the circumstances in which a minister must make regulations, and I am a bit worried about that.

I sense that the cabinet secretary wishes to make an intervention.