My two amendments in the group serve to make clear what an inspection plan should consider. Right now, it could be argued that it is as simple as whatever is in the “How Good is Our School?” document. However, that is now 10 years out of date, and we are looking for something that will bring a bit more rigour in the standards against which establishments will be evaluated. That is why my amendment 175 seeks to add the words

“including indicators of quality and improvement”.

That wording aims to bottom out the standards against which our establishments will be evaluated. We want there to be indicators of quality and improvement within an inspection framework against which an establishment’s performance will be evaluated and then reported on.

In amendment 177, I have further expanded that with the addition of what I would like to make clear is what I define as a rigorous and evidence-based inspection. Members will note that it states what the type of inspection activities could include, so there could be other things, but we want there to be interviews, observation, data analysis and questionnaires with stakeholders. Importantly, we also want evidence to be provided that can be analysed, assessed and then triangulated to reach conclusions to form a report on the quality of the provision as determined by that inspection framework.

More importantly, using that sort of analysis will mean that we can also measure improvement from that. That is what my two amendments are here to do—to allow us to have a clear starting point and to measure progress and improvement in the establishments.

I understand where you are coming from, cabinet secretary, but I point out that the key word in the amendment is “desirability”. We want inspections that are ultimately of use to the establishment and, indeed, the teachers, so that they can learn from them and improve the school or the educational establishment in question. Will you comment on that?

I thank Stephen Kerr for explaining the purpose of amendment 170. I want to reflect a bit on what the committee spoke about earlier in relation to the frequency of inspections, the culture of inspections and how they are perceived by the teaching establishment. We are trying to shift the dial and allow people to have a much more positive view of inspections, so that they see the opportunity that inspections can present to everyone and so that there is, as the amendment states,

“the desirability of carrying out inspections that ... are detailed”

and

“consider all areas of work”.

The amendment is about considering how an inspection affects the quality of learning, teaching, assessment, leadership, support for learning and ethos of a school. Ultimately, that will impact on every learner in a school. The amendment aims to shift the dial so that inspections are viewed and presented in a much more positive manner.

My two amendments in the group serve to make clear what an inspection plan should consider. Right now, it could be argued that it is as simple as whatever is in the “How Good is Our School?” document. However, that is now 10 years out of date, and we are looking for something that will bring a bit more rigour in the standards against which establishments will be evaluated. That is why my amendment 175 seeks to add the words

“including indicators of quality and improvement”.

That wording aims to bottom out the standards against which our establishments will be evaluated. We want there to be indicators of quality and improvement within an inspection framework against which an establishment’s performance will be evaluated and then reported on.

In amendment 177, I have further expanded that with the addition of what I would like to make clear is what I define as a rigorous and evidence-based inspection. Members will note that it states what the type of inspection activities could include, so there could be other things, but we want there to be interviews, observation, data analysis and questionnaires with stakeholders. Importantly, we also want evidence to be provided that can be analysed, assessed and then triangulated to reach conclusions to form a report on the quality of the provision as determined by that inspection framework.

More importantly, using that sort of analysis will mean that we can also measure improvement from that. That is what my two amendments are here to do—to allow us to have a clear starting point and to measure progress and improvement in the establishments.

Yesterday, the First Minister said in his statement:

“More cancer patients are now treated faster. Compared with a decade ago, 16 per cent more patients receive care within the 31-day standard and 11 per cent more within the 62-day standard.”—[Official Report, 6 May 2025; c 11.]

However, the reality is that prostate cancer outcomes in Scotland have fallen significantly behind those in England. Cancer staging is the same on both sides of the border. Despite national health service spending being higher per person in Scotland, more than one in three men are diagnosed at stage 4, which compares with only one in eight in London. That gap is staggering and unacceptable.

Can the cabinet secretary tell us when men in Scotland can expect the same chances of early diagnosis, which helps to save lives, as those who live elsewhere in the UK?

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve performance and close any treatment gap for prostate cancer, in light of reports that a lower proportion of patients in Scotland are treated within the 62-day target, at 49 per cent, compared with higher rates reported in England. (S6O-04623)

The programme for government outlines no timeline or plan to dual the A96; offers supposed milestones on dualling the A9, which was supposed to be finished this year; and contains no mention at all of other vital roads, such as the A75 and the A77. Does the First Minister accept that communities have been left in the dark over long-promised SNP upgrades to those vital roads? Can he guarantee that the upgrades will finally be delivered or even that they will be delivered at all?

At this week’s Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee meeting, Sarah Boyd from Lothian Buses made it clear that there is a link between the increase in antisocial behaviour on the Lothian Buses fleet and the under-22s concessionary bus pass. Will the minister provide an update on progress to find a mechanism to remove the under-22s concessionary pass from those who persistently engage in antisocial behaviour?

Key vessels owned by CMAL, such as the MV Isle of Mull, are currently operating with passenger restrictions after failing a safety check. It is expected that the MV Isle of Mull will return to full capacity next month, but how is the cabinet secretary working with CMAL to ensure that all vessels in operation pass the safety requirements?

In reference to where we are tonight, does the Education, Children and Young People Committee have the capacity to deal with nearly 400 amendments to an education bill to the point that we are having to sit for a number of evening sessions? We need to look long and hard at the Scottish Parliament’s capacity and the amount of legislation and other work that committees are asked to deal with.

Audit Scotland is held up as being a really good and heavily critical organisation that is well respected for how it reports to the Parliament in its various inquiries. When it came to my intentions, my head was in that space: I was looking for the chief inspector of schools to have kudos, influence and the trust of the public, which have been absent in relation to a number of things in education over the past few years.

That is where we are. However, given the feeling and sentiment, I will not press amendment 140.

Amendment 140, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 75 and 141 not moved.