I take the points that the cabinet secretary and Ross Greer have made about the current leadership and Shirley Rogers specifically, but I do not think that my amendment goes against retaining any leadership that can withstand the process. Having seen Shirley Rogers, I do not doubt her for a second. In any case, this should not be personal; it is about restoring trust in the system.

I do not doubt that a robust process could yield the right people, either by bringing people back in or by bringing new people into the system, if that were necessary. It would be helpful for us to have a mechanism that would allow us to have a refresh at this point. Everyone might return, but, at the very least, there would be an opportunity to ask the question.

I thank the convener for that intervention. Considering that it is nearly 10 pm, any clarification on anything that we have discussed at any point is helpful.

I maintain my concern that, without amendment 351, we would not have a mechanism. Even if it were a short process, I believe that we need something to ensure that we can be confident and comfortable that the people who are at the top of the organisation that will be set up by the bill, should it be passed, have the skills and integrity, and the confidence of the public, to take forward the qualifications body in the way that we need them to, given what we have all been through.

On that basis, I am not yet convinced that I should withdraw the amendment.

We should remember that the six-month period is not the period for which some of the board members will have been in post. They will have been in post for quite a bit longer than six months, and that includes those who are being recruited to the new organisation, which has not yet been set up.

I do not think that six months is too short a period. I am sympathetic to Miles Briggs’s point about considering whether the period could be a little bit longer, but I do not hear much movement from the cabinet secretary or any indication that she is prepared to negotiate on the issue at stage 3—unless I am detecting that now.

Today, we are faced with the option that, after six months, we should examine the process and consider whether we need to refresh the board. Given that the Government has begun to recruit to a board that does not yet exist for an organisation that has not yet been established, with functions that have not yet been agreed in legislation, it is important that we have an opportunity to do that.

I ask Mr Kerr to forgive me for the rather circuitous nature of my questioning. The bill currently says that ministers “may” make regulations on inspection intervals. I am not sure that the point is to do with the vehicle. My amendment 309 seeks to say that the Government should lay such regulations. I wonder whether Mr Kerr is as curious as I am about whether there are any other examples in legislation of its being stated that the Government must lay regulations, because I feel that there might be.

I ask the cabinet secretary to give me two minutes to talk about the wording of amendment 309, which seeks to replace “may” with “must”. It is already recognised in the bill that regulations could be laid; I am simply suggesting that they should be.

My amendment 309 is not about stipulating the number of inspections. The bill already suggests—so the Government must, at some point, have already felt—that there may need to be regulations. My suggestion is that, because of what Stephen Kerr has told us and because of the time that can pass between inspections, there should be regulations on the intervals between inspections. The Government has already accepted that there may be a need for such regulations; I am suggesting that ministers should produce them.

Amendment 87 says:

“The Chief Inspector must have regard to the desirability of working in collaboration”

whereas amendment 317 says that they should work in collaboration. I take the point about specificity and referring to the named organisation. However, there is a slight difference in the amendments.

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. Although 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.

Is there anything that you think we could do in legislation that might, for example, have highlighted some of the concerns that we see across the sector at the moment, particularly in Dundee?