I was going to say good morning, but it is the afternoon.

Thank you for your honesty, but also for the depth in which you have engaged with this because it is important. Before I ask my main question, if it is all right, I want to come back to Stephanie Lowe’s earlier point about the statistic that I quoted last week. That is what I think should drive us, and I think that your industry and our intentions to improve the life chances of young people across Scotland are aligned on that. What would you do, specifically, to make it easier for your industry to deliver for those 84,000 young people?

That is coming across strongly.

My amendment 321 would place a duty on the chief inspector in the exercise of their functions to take account of

“the priorities of the Scottish Ministers in relation to education”

and of recommendations made by bodies, including committees of the Scottish Parliament, whose remit includes matters relating to education policy.

My amendment 322 would place a duty on the chief inspector in the exercise of their functions to have regard for people who use British Sign Language, have protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 or have additional support needs. Given the circumstances in schools for pupils with additional support needs and the extensive information that we heard in advance of stage 2 about the importance of BSL and people with other protected characteristics, amendment 322 sets out what I think are particularly important aspects that the chief inspector must have regard to when carrying out their functions.

Amendment 323 provides regulation-making powers for ministers to say who is included as a specified body, and amendment 358, which is consequential on that, confirms that any regulations will be made under the affirmative procedure.

This group of my amendments seek to address a gap that has been identified in inspection in relation to secure care and education. Amendment 320 would create a duty on the chief inspector, in the exercise of their function, to consider the use of restraint and seclusion in education settings in secure accommodation in Scotland. Although the chief inspector inspected the educational aspect of secure accommodation, the Care Inspectorate covers other aspects. That is considered to be a gap. The purpose of the amendment is to introduce the function of inspecting the use of restraint and seclusion in secure accommodation. The effect is to provide for that role and responsibility to be exercised by the chief inspector.

Amendment 344 would expand the chief inspector’s remit to monitor the use of restraint and seclusion in education settings in secure care services, through the existing joint inspection framework with the Care Inspectorate applicable to those services. It aims to ensure that all use of restraint and seclusion in such services is appropriately recorded, reported and monitored as part of the joint inspection process between the Care Inspectorate and the chief inspector, thereby ensuring compliance with article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and articles 3 and 5 of the European convention on human rights.

Amendment 353 would provide the necessary definitions to support the joint inspection duty that is specified by amendment 344. Since lodging my amendments, I have had correspondence from various individuals who have been working with us on these issues to acknowledge that some movement has been made with the Government. I therefore intend not to move the amendments tonight, but I seek assurance that they could be brought back at stage 3 if the conclusion of that work has not delivered what was expected with regard to addressing the gap in inspection. While I do not intend to move the amendments, it is important that we identify that there has been a gap. Since I lodged the amendments, some activity seems to have been encouraged, which is an important aspect of what the process is about.

Good evening to the cabinet secretary, officials and others. I have listened carefully to the debate that we have had so far. I will go through amendment 313 in my name, but I take the cabinet secretary’s point—or offer—about my not moving amendment 313 and that we could work together at stage 3.

My amendment 313 follows on the calls in the independent reports of the OECD, Professor Ken Muir and many others that urge us to create an independent inspection body that is focused on improvement and collaboration with the establishment and local authority and which supports excellence in our learning establishments. I think that the amendment does that. It tightly defines the purposes of an inspection and it requires the independent inspection body to be focused on those areas.

Through various reviews and experiences, some of which the cabinet secretary and my colleague Stephen Kerr have spoken to, we have seen that things in schools have gone unnoticed for probably too long. That is why review after review has found the circumstances that have been found. Getting the purpose of inspections right will be absolutely crucial.

I have two concerns about the cabinet secretary’s amendment 84. I note that she will not press the amendment, but I will put my concerns on record for the purposes of negotiations at stage 3.

The fairly extensive regulation-making powers that would allow the Government to determine the purpose of inspections could threaten the independence of the inspector, and I will look to discuss the proposal at stage 3. I am concerned about the points raised by the EIS, as alluded to by the cabinet secretary, that individuals, as opposed to establishments, could be inspected. I think that enough has been said on that, because the cabinet secretary has acknowledged the concerns and I do not think that that was the intent. Therefore, I would not expect to see such a proposal in a negotiated amendment at stage 3.

The issues that are outlined in Stephen Kerr’s amendment 304 are critical to the future of Scotland’s education system. The lack of permanence in the teaching profession has meant that more newly qualified teachers have left the profession than before, and we know that the profession is considered to be quite precarious. We also understand that morale in the teaching profession is low, which I think we need to do various things to address. I say to both the cabinet secretary and Stephen Kerr that if laying out that we should inspect on the basis of teacher morale, contract type or ASN support is too much to include in legislation, where should we set out those requirements, so that we can guarantee that those things are considered and systematically and regularly reviewed, and so that we do not reach crisis point? Committee members and those watching the meeting will understand that those things are a significant concern.

I am not sure that it is quite right to include some of the detail in Stephen Kerr’s amendment 304 in the bill, but I understand why he has lodged it. I would be prepared to negotiate at stage 3 to see whether the bill could include something on the purposes of inspection that works for us all. I encourage the Government to consider carefully whether it considers that matters of teacher contracts, permanence, morale and ASN support should be covered in the bill. If not, at some point, the Government will have to be clear to members across the chamber what it is going to do about those key issues.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

If the committee were interested in the outcomes from the different approaches, would we be able to access them?

I thank the witnesses for the submissions that they sent us in advance, which were really helpful.

Professor Seaton, you note in your submission that “key metrics” could be used to determine success. What metrics should be used to show whether the bill has been a success?

Should that be done as well as the bill or instead of it?

Thank you—it is helpful to put those comments on the record.

I have a question for Martin Boyle. What kind of relationships does the SFC currently have with local authorities and schools?