Chamber and committees

I think that I have explained my concern about what we have heard in the consideration of this section of the bill about the capacity, the resources and the idea of regular inspections. I believe that the latter are fundamental to the whole area of cultural change and that they also support the profession and school leaders and shed true light on what is happening in our schools for the benefit of learners and their parents.

I will withdraw the amendments in my name on the basis that there might be the possibility—as I think that I heard—that we can talk in detail about the issue before stage 3.

Amendment 305, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 155 and 156 not moved.

I understand and respect those concerns. However, having transparency about the fact that whistleblowers were going to the officer concerned would be an important part of encouraging and supporting a culture of transformation with regard to whistleblowing. Currently, as I know that Ross Greer is fully aware, people have a negative connotation of whistleblowing. As legislators and public servants who have an interest in reforming Scotland’s public services across the board, we should want to try to change the perceived culture that exists within organisations, so that people feel empowered to discreetly, confidentially and anonymously—to begin with, perhaps—speak up.

In comparison with my amendments on inspection, with these amendments I am not trying to be overprescriptive about how whistleblowing would work. However, it is important that it works. I invite the committee to support my amendments. The cost of silence is too high and the moral imperative that I mentioned earlier is too strong. We are talking about the public interest. This is too important not to deal with now, and the opportunity to do the right thing is sitting right in front of us with these amendments.

I have heard what the cabinet secretary has said and I assure her that my intention is to reinforce and empower the independence of the chief inspector rather than to curtail or limit it in any way. I have already said to her privately that my vision is of a powerful chief inspector who would be the equivalent of the Auditor General for Scotland: someone who would be willing to speak up and speak truth to Parliament—to power, in effect. I do not see their assessing the elements and implementation of current education policy in Scotland—as per my amendment 346—as marking their own homework. However, I look forward to discussing those matters further with the cabinet secretary, and I will not press the amendment at this time.

Amendment 346, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 347 and 21 not moved.

Amendments 14 to 16 and 93 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Section 39, as amended, agreed to.

After section 39

Amendment 348 not moved.

Section 40—Other reports

Amendments 185 and 349 not moved.

Amendment 186 moved—[Sue Webber]—and agreed to.

Section 40, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 41 and 42 agreed to.

After section 42

Amendment 350 not moved.

Section 43—Powers of entry and inspection

Amendments 187 and 188 not moved.

Sections 43 to 45 agreed to.

Section 46—Necessary improvements: referral to Scottish Ministers

Amendment 189 not moved.

Section 46 agreed to.

Section 47—Preliminary notice of enforcement action

Amendments 190 to 195 not moved.

Section 47 agreed to.

Section 48—Enforcement direction

Amendments 196 to 205 not moved.

Section 48 agreed to.

Section 49—Publication of documents

Amendment 94 moved—[Jenny Gilruth]—and agreed to.

Amendment 22 moved—[Ross Greer].

Ms Duncan-Glancy knows me only too well; the word curious is probably one of many words that might be applied to me. I am curious about what the frequency of inspection would be. I understand the point that Martin Whitfield made, but I am concerned that we will leave this debate without being entirely clear about what we are going to end up with.

I am seeking a frequency of inspection that is not out of line with other parts of the United Kingdom. We have a situation in Scotland where our regime of inspections has, frankly, pretty much collapsed under Education Scotland. There were schools that went a decade without any inspection—and not just a few. I do not think that that is fair.

If a school is inspected any less often than every three or four years, a whole cohort of young people will go through an institution where there might be issues that could be rectified and where there are cultural issues that might be transformative and they will have been completely lost. The public would, rightly, be concerned to hear that we do not have such a regime in place or the number of inspectors that are required to do that properly in Scotland’s schools.

The concern that the cabinet secretary expressed about the chief inspector using a light-touch model is pretty much what happens currently, which is that—and I do not wish to be disparaging—inspections happen once every blue moon.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that the word “complaints” probably does not fully do justice to the issues that we are discussing? They are not so much individuals who are complaining as they are individuals who have seen something that they perceive to be against the public interest, which they wish to highlight but find in doing so that the organisation closes in on them due to its culture.

I think that the cabinet secretary understands what I am saying. Using the word “complaints” makes it sound like the issue that Ross Greer raised. We are not talking about people who are of a complaining disposition or who are in that space. We are talking about people who have heard or witnessed something that has led them to believe that they should do something as a professional because it would be against the public interest not to do so.

I will come to the frequency that I am proposing in a second. In answer to the specific issue that John Mason has raised, I understand the importance of risk-based and sampling approaches in inspections. However, the fact of the matter remains that many schools in Scotland have not had inspections for many years, which I do not think is acceptable in our system, because it leaves parents uninformed, teachers unsupported and learners unprotected from poor or stagnant practice.

On the second point that John Mason has raised, I think that a three-year cycle would not be overly burdensome—it would be modest, achievable and proportionate. It would ensure that every school received a visit within a reasonable timeframe without overloading the inspection body. Importantly, the amendment is consistent with the bill’s structure, because section 30 currently allows the chief inspector to determine inspection intervals while also allowing ministers to set minimum frequencies via regulation.

Amendment 306 simply establishes a clear statutory baseline expectation for school inspection once every three years. It does not conflict with the chief inspector’s role, and it provides an essential guarantee for learners and parents.

Amendment 305 is a consequential change to make it clear that the inspector’s discretion to determine the frequency of inspections is subject to that requirement. It does not negate the risk-based approach that John Mason mentioned earlier.

The upholding of high standards in that context would be in relation to the standard against which the inspector would operate rather than any kind of action that would rest on the inspector as a result of the inspection. I hope that that makes sense.

As I was about to say, it is worth noting that public trust in inspection is heavily influenced by whether people feel that they have been heard. When parents understand how the process works and feel that their concerns matter, they are more likely to view inspection reports as credible. Likewise, when teachers know that their views and concerns are taken seriously, they are more likely to act on inspection feedback and, when learners see their experience reflected in the findings, they gain a greater sense of ownership of their education.

Amendments 319 and 170 form part of a wider reform agenda that seeks to put participation, inclusion and trust at the heart of the education system. They ask very little in legislative terms but will deliver a great deal in terms of impact. I urge the committee to support the amendments.

I move amendment 319.

If there is no baseline in legislation as to how frequently, at a minimum, an inspection should happen, we could slip back into the situation that we have currently, which I do not find acceptable and which I think that Willie Rennie does not find acceptable either.

My amendments are well meaning—if members will forgive the verbosity on the side of their presenter. The idea is to establish a statutory expectation. It is in law that inspections will happen, but they do not happen currently. I have heard Willie Rennie speak about that issue in the chamber in relation to his constituency. It is a real issue that I think we should seek to address in the bill.

I shall press on, convener. I am driving at transparency, which is critical, because nobody wants schools to operate in the fog of uncertainty about when an inspection will come or how frequently they should happen. Neither parents and communities nor school leaders and teachers should be kept guessing.

Amendments 305 and 306 would give structure and predictability to inspections. Together, the amendments aim to professionalise and systematise—I hope that I have not invented that word—the inspection regime by bringing Scotland into alignment with international comparators. In England, Ofsted inspects state schools on a regular cycle, typically every four years; in Wales, it is every three years. I am not proposing anything all that radical; I am proposing that we, in Scotland, follow suit—or, in some respects, because of the lack of consistency and frequency of inspections, catch up.

Amendment 310 is an alternative approach to amendments 155 and 158, which would remove the Scottish ministers’ role in inspections entirely, including the provision that the chief inspector

“must comply with any written request”

to carry out an inspection. I think that that debate might have been dealt with in the session that I was not able to attend, last week.

The proposals that are put together are fully consistent with the bill as introduced. The explanatory notes to the bill make it clear that, although there is provision for ministers to set the inspection frequency by regulation—I think that that is correct—the bill does not provide a statutory inspection cycle or follow-up duty. By enshrining a three-year cycle and mandatory follow-up, the amendments would fill a structural gap without undermining the flexibility or judgment of the chief inspector.

There is lots of evidence from other bodies that supports the idea of having a regular inspection, and I urge the committee to consider the amendments together. They are not partisan proposals; they are practical reforms that are rooted in evidence. They are aligned with my concern about the need for a change in culture, and they would benefit teachers, school leaders, learners and parents.

I move amendment 305.

I take the point that George Adam is making. I am not dismissing either his point or the point that John Mason raised.

I think that Ken Muir’s position is that the establishment of the independent office of the chief inspector is a great opportunity to address the issues, particularly the cultural issues, around inspection that I am trying to highlight. All of my gathering of personal evidence from listening to Professor Muir has convinced me that we can have a different approach to school inspections in Scotland. I do not quite understand why having a frequency of around every three years would overburden school leaders and teachers.

The cabinet secretary knows full well that I have great expectations about the trustworthiness of the chief inspector. So much hangs on the individual who will be the chief inspector, the culture that they will operate in their broader remit and how they will use their independence to the best effect.

However, I have concerns on behalf of the chief inspector; I am concerned that, in a flight of fancy, he might agree that we should do inspections every three years, given that we are being told that we will not be able to do them every three years because there will not be enough of anything to provide such an inspection regime, which would be the same as what is already provided in other parts of the United Kingdom. That concerns me.

I cannot speak for the committee, because I am not a member of it, but I cannot be the only one who is concerned. I am sure that members of the committee must be concerned to hear that we will not be able to have a more regular and cyclical approach to inspections because we do not have enough inspectors, or because we cannot—