The member will be unsurprised to learn that Conservative members are opposed to that view. Would he acknowledge, however, that the presence of the Crown in our institutions is a visible and stabilising expression of democratic accountability and constitutional continuity? The title “His Majesty’s Chief Inspector” reminds us that, while the appointment may be made by ministers, it is made under the King in the interests of the people of Scotland. The current system reflects that balance, with the appointment being made by His Majesty on the recommendation of ministers.

If Ross Greer’s amendments were to be agreed to, it would set a concerning precedent in that the chief inspector of education in Scotland would become the first major public office in modern Scottish history to have the role of sovereign deliberately removed from its appointment process. Therefore, I urge members to reject those amendments. I also have a 20-page speech from Stephen Kerr on the issue. As my voice is starting to go and it is 10 to 8, I will not read that out, but I will give Mr Greer a copy or place it in the Scottish Parliament information centre. We very much oppose these amendments.

I would like to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say before taking that decision.

Amendment 303 proposes that the chief inspector be appointed for a fixed and non-renewable term of seven years. Again, that is about protecting the independence of the role. A non-renewable term removes the risk of perceived favour-seeking and liberates the postholder to lead fearlessly and impartially. Seven years is, I believe, a reasonable period—it is long enough to ensure that there is strategic continuity and that an impact is made. It also keeps fresh leadership in mind. That approach is consistent with other public appointments in Scotland and beyond. It is a safeguard against politicisation, entrenchment of authority and dilution of challenge.

At the committee’s meeting last week, we had a long discussion about whether seven years was an appropriate length of time to be head of an organisation, and whether there would be unintended consequences in respect of forcing someone out of the role, even if they were performing highly. I do not think that that would be the case.

To summarise, amendments 302 and 303 would work together to professionalise and protect the role of the chief inspector.

I move amendment 302.

I partly agree. Crucially, amendment 290 would place a duty on Education Scotland to involve teachers in shaping the curriculum, which I do not think would be impacted by ministers’ direction to that organisation. Teachers are the end users, and they should be at the heart of the process of developing the curriculum for young people. I think that amendment 290 is important in providing the opportunity for them to do that, as well as in decluttering the landscape of educational establishments.

The Muir review repeatedly stressed the importance of reconnecting national bodies with the lived experience of teachers. Professor Muir wrote that it is essential that those who hold leadership positions in national education bodies have experience of the sectors that they oversee and can demonstrate that credibility and understanding when engaging with practitioners. The definition is not outlined in amendment 302, so it is open to amendment at stage 3. However, amendment 302 looks towards leadership skills, which my colleague Stephen Kerr and, I think, the wider committee would be supportive of potentially outlining in further detail at stage 3.

Amendments 302 and 303 concern the appointment of the chief inspector of education. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the appointment process for that crucial post is robust, transparent and principled. The bill, as introduced, creates a position of chief inspector, but it does so with minimal definition regarding who should be eligible to hold that office and how long they should serve in that role. In a role of such significance to the quality and integrity of Scotland’s education system, that omission is neither trivial nor technical.

Amendment 302 proposes that, to be eligible for appointment as chief inspector, an individual must be a qualified teacher and have held a senior leadership role within a school or other educational establishment. That is not an exclusion clause; rather, it is a statement of principle that those who lead the scrutiny of education in Scotland should have substantial and relevant experience of the sector that they will be inspecting.

I have been listening to the member and my only concern about amendment 6 is that it would politicise qualifications Scotland, in that he would be placing on it a duty to take into account the Government of the day’s priorities in the development of courses. Does he recognise that, and has he thought about what that might mean for an organisation that should be focused on what the economy needs, not necessarily on what the priorities of politicians in Government are?

The cabinet secretary will know how keen a consensus builder my colleague Stephen Kerr is, so with that in mind, I will not press amendment 302 or move amendment 303, and we can all look forward to working together on what will, I hope, be workable amendments for stage 3.

Amendment 302, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 76, 303 and 142 to 144 not moved.

I would be happy to do that. I hoped that this group would have amendments from other members, because there are other things that would be of benefit to the bill. There is probably support for this within the governing party as well. I hope that there will be an opportunity to widen the offering in the bill at stage 3. Considering the number of pupils with additional support needs in our schools, it is important that the new organisations embed that support.

That is a good point. The other amendments in the group, which are in Pam Duncan-Glancy’s name, propose the creation of a new agency—curriculum Scotland—to do the work in question. My colleague Stephen Kerr has been trying to improve the bill by defining in it the future role of Education Scotland in education. That is an important aspect, because we have all been looking at that organisation and wondering what it will do in the future and how it can be improved.

At the root of the challenge that we face in reforming the education system is the urgent need to provide clarification of who is responsible for what. As the OECD report rightly reminded us, governance clarity is not simply administrative tidiness; it is a precondition for effective oversight and learner-centred improvement.

I look forward to hearing from Pam Duncan-Glancy and the cabinet secretary.

I move amendment 290.

I am not sure how Pam Duncan-Glancy intends to vote on my colleague Stephen Kerr’s amendment 290, but that amendment would give Education Scotland the formal responsibility that, basically, her amendments would give to a new organisation. The minister is about to comment but I note that, currently, Education Scotland, Government departments and the University of Glasgow are doing work on that. Is there an opportunity, as part of the bill, to bring that into one single organisation, without costing the taxpayer more? That organisation could—and probably should—be Education Scotland.