I take on board those points. The amendments would expand the new inspectorate regime to include what people want, which should be welcome. We know that there are on-going issues with the school estate, with RAAC being one of those issues. It is welcome that the vast majority of schools have now, I think, corrected that, but parents will want to be confident that there is an on-going inspection regime and that the certificates, which are sometimes provided by private companies, will not be lost, because they will be asked for when an inspection takes place.

I take the member’s point, and given my colleague Stephen Kerr’s point about when inspections take place, there might be a different or better framework for making that documentation available from local authorities. I understand that, and I am sure that Liz Smith will be open to discussing and developing that further.

As with Liz Smith’s amendments, amendments 165 and 209 in my name are probing amendments to consider the opportunity to explore how we can improve child protection and safeguarding in educational establishments. Given what the cabinet secretary has said, I do not intend to move them.

I appreciate what the cabinet secretary has said and look forward to hearing about those conversations.

I put on record my hope that the petition will be heard—we will see how the Government responds to it. More importantly, some timescale for that is needed because, given the pace at which the Government wants the bill to be voted on and passed, the petition will not be part of that process. The petition has been sitting unaddressed for the duration of this parliamentary session, but I hope that it is progressed before the election so that a new organisation can be created or further inspection changes can take place.

I will not press amendment 157 or move my other amendments in the group.

Amendment 157, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 306 and 307 not moved.

I appreciate what the cabinet secretary has said and look forward to hearing about those conversations.

I put on record my hope that the petition will be heard—we will see how the Government responds to it. More importantly, some timescale for that is needed because, given the pace at which the Government wants the bill to be voted on and passed, the petition will not be part of that process. The petition has been sitting unaddressed for the duration of this parliamentary session, but I hope that it is progressed before the election so that a new organisation can be created or further inspection changes can take place.

I will not press amendment 157 or move my other amendments in the group.

Amendment 157, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 306 and 307 not moved.

I think that the cabinet secretary has met with Beth Morrison about her Calum’s law campaign. I do not know whether Daniel Johnson’s bill will time out in the current parliamentary session, but it seeks to improve data collection, the recording of incidents and the training of individuals. It does not look as though that is captured in amendment 88, so perhaps the cabinet secretary would look to lodge an amendment at stage 3 to include that.

I fully respect the point that the petition that I have mentioned is still live, but will the potential discussions that the cabinet secretary has referred to include the establishment of what the petitioners have been seeking—that is, an independent national whistleblowing officer not just for education but for wider children’s services in Scotland? That is currently missing, and I point out that we have moved to provide such a function for health services, for example. Is that something that the Government would consider?

The responses to our call for views highlighted concerns around a lack of representation of employers in industry. Have you read those responses? What is your take on how you would ensure that that works?

I raised the matter with the minister during education portfolio questions on 24 April, and the letter that he sent to me on 30 April said that the analysis would be received in June, which would then allow you to update your information. Is that still—

I am not sure that I can get the cabinet secretary to make another intervention on Pam Duncan-Glancy, but I think that it is important that there is an opportunity for a refresh. I wonder whether the member, along with the cabinet secretary, could go away and think about a suitable amendment for stage 3. We all want confidence to be rebuilt in the new organisation, and I am sympathetic to what the member is trying to achieve. I do not know whether the Scottish Government needs to be a bit more flexible on what the transitional arrangements look like. Where people are not performing, we need to build in opportunities for a review to take place.

I just caught the cabinet secretary at the end there. The matter goes back to conversations that the committee had following the tragedy at Liberton high school. It was then quite clear that, with regard to parliamentary scrutiny, there had to be an opportunity to at least review where that documentation is being held. My colleague Ross Greer referred to issues in another council area. Will the cabinet secretary be open—perhaps not as part of the bill—to consider what that will look like?

Having been a member of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, I have specific concerns that a similar situation exists for social housing, specifically with regard to RAAC. However, I think that most people would expect that documentation to be held and viewed when inspections take place in our school estate. I do not know whether the cabinet secretary could at least review the matter, given that local authorities are the ones that currently hold that documentation. I have not seen a practice in place to provide public transparency on that.

Good morning. As we have touched on, scrapping the Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board, as the bill proposes, presents many questions. I go back to a point that you made, Clare Reid, on further involvement from regional employers. How would you see an apprenticeship committee working, if one is established within the SFC? What role would industry play in that? I have specific concerns in relation to where private training providers who provide certification and registration would sit in that structure. I put that question to you again. What is your understanding of what that structure would look like?