Chamber and committees

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.

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?

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?

I thank Ross Greer for accepting my prompt to intervene and clarifying that. I understand and accept that point. Given that any other form of scrutiny of the plan is absent from the bill, his amendment 92 is useful.

I do not intend to move amendment 334, due to what my colleague Ross Greer said about other members of staff who are employed by the establishment. I did not intend to exclude them and would rather that the provision was far more inclusive. I am sure that he appreciates that.

However, I press amendment 331.

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.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that, in discussing a previous amendment—my colleague Stephen Kerr’s, I think—on the purposes of inspection, we talked about whether we would set out in those purposes specifics such as the experience of pupils with ASN in schools. Amendment 322 could be a bit of a compromise on that because, at the least, it would require that, in carrying out their function, the chief inspector must consider pupils with additional support needs.

On the point about protected characteristics under the 2010 act, I do not think that there is any reason not to reiterate those protections in the bill.

On a point of order, convener. Apologies, my vote on amendment 88 should have been yes, therefore my vote on amendment 89 should have been yes as well. I mixed up the amendments. I would have voted for amendment 89 in the cabinet secretary’s name.

I appreciate that. Thank you.