What can you say about some of the outcomes for the students who have gone through that programme?

Thank you for the information that you have submitted in advance. I found it useful.

My first question is on foundation apprenticeships. They have played a key role not just in widening access to work-based learning but, in particular, for students and young people from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, and for others who might not otherwise have had a direct route into high-quality vocational pathways. In the evidence received by the committee, there have been concerns about how the new structure could manage the relationships between the organisations involved. Damien, could you set out the nature of SDS’s current relationship with schools in delivering foundation apprenticeships? What infrastructure and partnerships have you got, and what will be needed in the future?

Have you had any intelligence about why there was a delay in the publication of the accounts of a couple of colleges? I think that you said that Audit Scotland was involved. Is there any other information that you can give us about that?

Do you think that, with the new responsibilities on top of those current responsibilities, the SFC will be able to scrutinise the sector’s financial sustainability to the level that is required?

On the idea of Dundee being a one-off, the publication of the reports on the financial sustainability of colleges and universities has been delayed. They are normally due in January, so can you explain why the reports have been delayed and when they will be published?

I take Mr Greer’s point that amendment 334 could be read in that way. It could also be read in such a way that the people providing support are taking part in training and education, too, and support staff often tell us that that is what they are having to do. However, I would not want there to be any ambiguity in the drafting so, if the member has found that, it would be important for us to work together on the matter ahead of stage 3. The principle behind amendment 334 is an important one, and I hope that the member will consider it to be so.

My amendments in the group are crucial. We need to find a way to ensure that inspections pick up on what is happening as regards the wellbeing and experience of the pupils in schools and the people who work there. I realise that there have been behaviour plans, summits and other initiatives, but it would give a real focus to inspections if they were to include those factors. The mental and physical wellbeing of everyone in a school, whether they are working or being educated there, is incredibly important, which is why I lodged the amendments.

I move amendment 331.

Amendment 318 says that the chief inspector would “coordinate the support provided” instead of delivering the change. Once schools get their inspection reports, which, at the minute, are one word long—or, at least, are fairly short—they can be left without much support or advice on how to improve, and my amendment aims to add to the inspectorate’s work the function of trying to help schools collaborate with others to get as much information and support as they might need in order to make the improvements that the inspection report suggests that they need to make. If members support that principle, I would be prepared to bring the issue back at stage 3, but that is the intention behind the amendment. I would hope that I could get some support for giving the inspectorate that type of collaborative, supportive function at stage 3.

I will not be moving my amendment 350, for the reasons that the cabinet secretary and Ross Greer have highlighted with regard to Education Scotland being named specifically. Again, however, I would note that I lodged my amendments in this group, because I felt that it was important for us to understand that the system needs to be coherent and that all the parts need to work together. Teachers on the front line and people who work in schools need to feel closer to the decisions around the improvement function in respect of how they can improve the delivery of education to the young people in their establishments. That is what these amendments were intended to do.

The text of amendment 318 is that

“The Chief Inspector may work with relevant educational establishments and local authorities to coordinate the support provided to children, young people and their parents in those establishments.”

That is quite clear, and I think that it takes us a step further than the wording in amendment 87, which is that the chief inspector should

“have regard to the desirability of”

collaborative working, because it is a little bit more directive.

Amendment 318 also says that

“The Chief Inspector may prepare and publish guidance on the exercise”

of their functions under this section of the bill. I think that there is scope to provide the flexibility that is needed, as well as to ask or expect the chief inspector to support education authorities and others in the sector as part of their function, which is to improve schools.

I have listened to the points on whether the timescale should be 60 or 40 days, and I am erring towards Ross Greer’s argument that it should be 60 days. It is important that the Parliament has as much time as possible to scrutinise the plan. Narrowing the period to 40 days could make it very tight. For example, if it was laid on the day before recess, we would have very few days left when we came back from recess to be able to do anything about it.

I thank the member for that intervention and I encourage him, and his party and Government, to support my colleague Daniel Johnson’s bill. However, we have this bill in front of us, and there is an opportunity to look at restraint and seclusion. As I have put on the record, the issue is incredibly important, and I am pleased that Joe FitzPatrick thinks that it is important to include it in Daniel Johnson’s member’s bill. Given that I am sure that he supports what my amendments seek to do, I hope that he will also support that bill.

I move amendment 320.