Chamber and committees

I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the cross-party talks that we will all enter into, so I will leave that issue there. I am happy to engage with members on the substantive point. I hear the convener’s point; others have made similar points.

Members need to be mindful of the fact that qualifications Scotland will have functions in relation to devising and reviewing qualifications and assessments. We will seek assurances on the validity of those processes, which will continue to play a key role. For example, in the same way that the SQA does, I would expect qualifications Scotland to have a head of standards to oversee and support the organisation’s approach to maintaining and improving standards throughout all stages of qualifications Scotland’s qualifications and awarding processes.

Members have recognised that the accreditation function that we discussed last week, which delivers oversight of the quality assurance of the assessment components within the qualifications system, plays an important role. We have already spoken at length about that, as I have alluded to, and we have discussed the role of accreditation in the system from the point of view not only of its location, but of its reach and scope. Last week, in response to Mr Kerr, I made the point that members needed to be mindful of the fact that not all qualifications in Scotland are currently accredited. When we talk about scope, we should be mindful of the effect on the qualifications portfolio in its totality.

It is clear that all those elements of Mr Ross’s amendments cannot be discussed in isolation from one another, or from the points that Mr Rennie made. I would like to discuss all those matters in the round when we have our meeting on accreditation in the coming weeks.

For all those reasons, I cannot support Mr Ross’s amendments in their current form. I ask Mr Ross not to press amendment 297 or to move amendments 298 to 301, with a view to our revisiting those points on a collective basis at stage 3.

I broadly agree with the sentiment behind Mr Adam’s question.

It is important that ministers hold the power to take that enforcement action, where necessary and proportionate, on the basis of information from inspection. In my view, the inspectorate of education is not and should not be about regulation. Taking on such an enforcement role, which it does not currently have, would fundamentally change its character. I therefore cannot agree with Sue Webber’s amendment 155, even if that is accompanied by amendment 307 from Stephen Kerr—who, I appreciate, is not here—as it would leave ministers without the ability, under any circumstances, to require the chief inspector to secure the inspection of a particular establishment, including in cases in which significant concerns had been raised.

Similarly, I urge members to reject Mr Rennie’s amendment 156, which would require ministers to seek the views of the committee before requesting an inspection. Given the circumstances in which powers are likely to be used, such as where there might be urgent concerns—the point that Mr Greer raised—it would not be appropriate to take time for that step if we had to move at pace.

I also urge members to reject Ms Webber’s amendments 189 to 205, which would remove the role of ministers in relation to enforcement directions.

Additionally, as has been alluded to, Ms Webber’s amendment 155 would remove the requirement for the chief inspector to comply with a request from ministers to inspect an educational establishment. It would also remove the power of the chief inspector to secure the inspection of an excepted establishment on the request of ministers.

Amendment 161 would remove the excepted establishment definition in section 31(4) of the bill. That would be problematic because, taken together, those amendments would bring post-16 further education colleges and the higher education institutions that deliver accredited initial teacher education within the scope of the chief inspector’s duty to secure inspection of educational establishments at such intervals and to such an extent as the chief inspector considered necessary. Under the current provisions, excepted establishments would be inspected only on the request of ministers.

I agree that there is a need for robust quality assurance mechanisms to be in place for post-16 further education for ITE. However, two separate oversight and regulatory mechanisms already exist. The Scottish Funding Council, which I know has written to the committee, already has a statutory duty to ensure that provision is made for assessing and enhancing the quality of university provision, including ITE and post-16 further education.

In relation to ITE specifically, a second layer of regulation is led by the General Teaching Council for Scotland, which is the relevant professional body—I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests in that regard. Amendment 161 would create a third layer, adding further duplication, additional bureaucratic requirements and extra costs for higher education institutions, with no discernible benefit.

More broadly, members’ amendments in the group have competing conceptions about whether power over a range of matters should be vested in the chief inspector alone or whether it should be vested in the Scottish Parliament’s corporate body and in the committee.

On the latter, a range of amendments lodged by Ms Webber seek to place powers with the SPCB as opposed to with ministers. I am mindful of the fact that the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which includes Mr Mason and Mr Greer, reported in September 2024 on the number of bodies that are supported by the SPCB and recommended a moratorium on the creation of any more. The Parliament voted to accept that recommendation, and the convener and Ms Webber were among those who supported it.

More than that, the committee also noted that SPCB-supported body status was not necessary to demonstrate independence from Government, with policing and prisons inspectorates being cited as good examples of Government-led bodies that act independently and produce robust recommendations. Given that the model for HM chief inspector of education, which is set out in the bill as introduced, broadly follows that same approach, it is not clear why the education inspectorate cannot be equally successful.

In addition, the model as proposed in the bill would allow us to meet one of Professor Muir’s key recommendations—that HM inspectors of education continue to be civil servants. That would not be feasible if they were to become employees of the chief inspector, with all the implications of that for the transfer of staff.

Also, in its stage 1 report, the committee noted that some members did not consider it necessary for the chief inspector to be accountable to the Scottish Parliament.

On a point of order, convener. Amendment 73, in my name, adds a requirement for a statutory review to be undertaken on the accreditation function. I offer my thanks to Ms Duncan-Glancy for her eagle eyes on this, because, earlier tonight, I inadvertently moved the amendment and, in response, members—also, I presume, inadvertently—unanimously supported it. As I promised all members, I am entirely committed to cross-party discussions ahead of stage 3 on the location and scope of the accreditation function and the connected interest in the reviewing and quality assurance of qualifications. It is absolutely not my intention that amendment 73 pre-empt those discussions. I fully intend to remove or amend the provision at stage 3 to reflect the outcome of the discussions, and I want to put that on the record. I again offer my thanks to Ms Duncan-Glancy.

I thank Mr Briggs for setting out, on behalf of Mr Kerr, the purpose of these amendments. I believe that they both bring forward important points, but I am not able to support them in their current form.

Leaving aside, for the moment, the question of which entity would be appointing the chief inspector, I agree with the principle behind amendment 302, which I take to be that the chief inspector should have relevant educational experience, including at leadership level.

However, I believe that there are a number of issues with the amendment as drafted. The principal issue is that insisting that the chief inspector should be, or should have been, “a registered teacher” may unintentionally exclude excellent candidates. In particular, depending on how the idea of being registered is interpreted, and whether that means being registered with the General Teaching Council for Scotland, it may exclude someone from outwith Scotland who has not been registered here.

Amendment 303 limits the length of appointment to a maximum of seven years and prohibits reappointment. I suggest to members that that is unnecessary prescriptive, even if the original appointment was for a much shorter period of time than seven years.

As I flagged to Mr Kerr in the debate on group 4 last Wednesday, when he sought to make similar provision for the chief executive of qualifications Scotland, the terms of chief executives and, in this case, other HM chief inspectors for other inspectorates in Scotland are generally governed by appointment contracts and governance frameworks, rather than explicit legislative term limits.

With regard to removing the ability to be reappointed as chief inspector, again, I point out to members that that would remove the flexibility that may, in certain circumstances, be needed to ensure the effectiveness of the office.

However, I understand the reasons behind both the amendments. I respectfully ask that amendment 302 is not pressed and that amendment 303 is not moved, and I commit to working with Mr Kerr, or indeed with Mr Briggs, ahead of stage 3 to agree a way forward.

I am afraid that I cannot agree with Mr Mason’s assertions, and I am not able to support the amendments.

I am listening to the member’s points and I am pretty supportive of where she is. In listening and responding to that, I will not resist that amendment, because I think that the arguments that have been set out are compelling. I have given her a response today on some of the work that I have undertaken to build in a better relationship, but I take on board the points that she has made. I think that they are reasonable, convener, so I am happy to support the amendment from the Government’s perspective.

I have finished, but yes, I will.

The member talked about the inspector scrutinising ministers’ practice, but the job of the chief inspector is not to scrutinise ministers’ practice; it is to scrutinise learning and teaching practice in our schools. It is important that we make that differentiation. I am sure that you can all pass judgement on ministers’ practice.

I thank Ms Duncan-Glancy and Mr Greer for outlining the purpose of their amendments, and I welcome the support for the inclusion of BSL in the bill. For the reasons that I have already set out, I urge Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move her amendment but to support mine instead. I also urge members to support Mr Greer’s amendments on Scots in addition to my amendments on BSL.

To answer Ms Duncan-Glancy’s point, I am happy to look again at stage 3 at whether there is anything more that can or should be said about disabilities, but, for the reasons that I have set out, I do not think that it makes sense to refer here to communicating in a way that best meets the needs of persons with a protected characteristic.

Amendment 72 agreed to.

Amendment 286 not moved.

Amendment 17 moved—[Ross Greer].

The two amendments speak to “advice”. The member asserts that that advice would not compel them, but, given that the advice does not exist yet, I am not sure that she can say with certainty that that advice might not suggest that that information sharing is compelled—that they are instructed, essentially, to share information. I think that the member is making a prejudgment. The wording suggests that the advice could, by its nature as advice, say whatever it says, and that will have to be interpreted accordingly.

I want to touch on the update that Mr Dey gave to the committee. He set out the early stages of considering how a unique learner number could be delivered and the very careful consideration that would be needed on an array of complex legal matters, such as data protection.

Putting in place data sharing on this scale is a lengthy process and one that requires significant work. Mr Dey has been clear that those aspects will not be resolved in the short, or even the medium, term. Although I recognise that the unique learner number would enable better tracking and monitoring of students from a widening access background, and that the outcomes of data sharing on this scale—