Chamber and committees

George Adam’s intervention is very helpful, because it adds weight to my concerns about frequency. Even an outstanding school in England is inspected every four to five years.

I am always reassured when I hear ministers say that they are not seeking power to dictate. [Laughter.] I still harbour a concern, but I am willing to go along—

I wish to say some words about why I felt the need to lodge amendment 304 in the first place. I think that many members will sympathise with the reasoning as to why these are salient issues in our education environment.

Amendment 304 states:

“An inspection under subsection (1) must include an assessment of, and any recommendations for improvements relating to ... the implementation and effectiveness of discipline policies ... the quality of the learning environment ... the support provided to persons with additional support needs, including access to appropriate resources and specialist support ... the morale and wellbeing of teachers and staff ... whether the number of teachers and staff in the establishment can meet the needs of the persons undertaking a qualification in that establishment ... the type of employment contract held by teachers and staff in the establishment ... the number”—

I am happy to.

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.

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.

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.

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—