Chamber and committees

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of the statement.

At a time when teaching unions are reporting record levels of violence in our classrooms and teachers are requesting self-defence training, I continue to have deep concerns that the plan and what has been outlined today will not end violence in our classrooms and schools.

Teachers and parents with whom I have spoken said that they had not even heard of the relationship and behaviour in schools action plan. Ministers have a long way to go to demonstrate and give confidence to teachers and our school communities that the plan will deliver the safe school environments that we all want to see. Teachers want to know that they will be supported and that any decisions on disruptive and violent pupils, whom they cannot manage in the classroom, will be respected, including by council management.

The cabinet secretary says that consequences are an essential part of a supportive learning environment—I agree. One of the action plan outcomes was that school staff should

“feel confident to report, record, monitor, assess and respond to individual incidents and patterns of behaviour”.

Will the new guidance on consequences include a presumption that, if a pupil has been violent towards a member of staff—including towards classroom assistants, which I believe is not being recorded—they will be kept out of the classroom until their behaviour changes?

As we have already heard, the proposals by the Edinburgh integration joint board are likely to see key services cut, including drop-in support, carers services and, even as we mark victory in Europe day, veterans support services. The First Minister apportioned blame, but the cuts are not acceptable. The IJB will cut £29 million from services in Edinburgh. Does he think that our health services will be improved by the decisions that are being taken by the IJB? Will he agree to meet the cross-party group of MSPs who are trying to raise the issue in Parliament and who have just had the First Minister whack this back at us? We need action and we want the First Minister to take heed of that today.

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.