Chamber and committees

No. However, in answer to Mr Mason’s question, I would suggest that, in order to meet the target, there would have to be a recruitment drive to support the requirement for a significant number of additional inspectors. That would be extremely challenging, given the depth of experience that is required for someone to become an inspector. After all, inspectors do not come fully formed; we have to train people, and that will take time.

Inspectors often join the inspectorate directly from school—I am thinking of, for example, headteachers and deputy headteachers. There are constraints on how quickly we can get staff out of school and trained up, which might compromise any approach to the associated challenges that we have already heard about this evening with regard to recruitment in the system more broadly.

There would also be an increased burden on teachers in having to prepare for the inspections; indeed, that is the point that I was trying to make to Mr Kerr. His proposal would add to the unnecessary pressure on schools, which, as we know, are already struggling with capacity issues. I therefore cannot accept Mr Kerr’s amendments and I encourage him not to move them.

Mr Greer raises an important point. Historically, schools were inspected on a generational basis—that is, every seven years—and we have moved away from that model in recent years. However, I am happy to investigate Mr Greer’s point, because I think that it is an important one.

I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move amendment 309. I will discuss the matter further with her and any other members, including Mr Greer and Mr Kerr, with a view to identifying what, if any, mutually acceptable provisions on the frequency of school inspections could be brought back at stage 3.

I have been discussing the matter with officials. The issue pertains to the use of the word “must”, which presumes that Parliament would grant the cabinet secretary or the minister of the day the permission to make the regulations in question. We have to give Parliament the final say in relation to the use of the word “must”. I cannot compel Parliament—Parliament has to decide. That is my difficulty with amendment 309, which is why I said to Ms Duncan-Glancy that I would be happy to work with her on her amendment such that we can all agree on it and Parliament can be given its place in making that decision, because that is not for me to dictate. I hope that that gives the member some reassurance.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am simply seeking to intervene on Ms Duncan-Glancy.

I am happy to investigate that with Ms Duncan-Glancy ahead of stage 3. The point that I was making in response to Mr Greer is that we need to be careful about what we do and that we should engage more broadly with stakeholders. I am mindful of the fact that the teaching trade unions, in particular, will have views on the issue, and it is important that those are heard.

I am also cognisant of the issues associated with stipulating, for example, the number of inspections that should be carried out in a school year, which I think that Mr Greer spoke about and which Mr Kerr addresses in his amendments. We need to be mindful of the fact that, by increasing the number of inspections, we might be decreasing the quality of the information that would be made available.

It is not in the gift of the minister alone to make affirmative regulations, which is why, I am advised, there is an issue with the word “must”. However, I would be more than happy to engage with the member on the matter ahead of stage 3, so that we can reach a position that we agree on. I agree with the broader point that she has made.

Amendment 312 would add a requirement that ministers must consult registered teachers, as well as

“persons who appear ... to represent the interests of registered teachers”,

before making regulations about the frequency of inspection. Given that ministers would consider it appropriate to consult such persons in any case, I am happy to support the amendment.

I recognise what Ms Duncan-Glancy is saying, and I would be keen to work with her on that aspect ahead of stage 3. There is much common ground in that area that we can work on, and I hope that, through joint consideration, we can reach a mutually agreeable position.

My concern with Stephen Kerr’s amendment 304 is that it is overly prescriptive. Including amendments of such a nature in the bill would make it difficult for the new chief inspector to develop their role organically and, importantly, it would limit their ability to respond to the changing needs of the education system over time. Although I agree on the importance of each of the issues that he has listed, they are not high-level purposes for the chief inspector to have regard to over the longer term. They would prevent the carrying out of focused thematic inspections by requiring every inspection to cover each of the matters listed. For example, discipline policies would always have to be inspected, as would the employment contracts held by teachers, even when those aspects were not relevant to the theme that the chief inspector wanted to examine.

Many of those matters are already included as quality indicators in the “How good is our school?” framework that is currently used by the inspectorate. I hope that that reassures Stephen Kerr that the concerns that his amendment 304 looks to address are currently, and will continue to be, of importance to the chief inspector.

It is important to highlight that the purposes specified in amendment 84 have been consulted on and align with those identified by Professor Muir—which was Pam Duncan-Glancy’s point—and that the drafting delivers a strong position on the purpose of inspection. Notwithstanding that, although I will move amendment 84 for the purpose of opening up this group for debate, I will be happy to seek to withdraw it if Pam Duncan-Glancy does not move her amendment 313, and I suggest that we work to identify an agreed position for stage 3. That will also allow me to ensure that, when we bring the matter back, we address a concern that has been raised by the EIS, which is that it be made clear that the purpose of inspection is to hold to account institutions, not individual teachers, which I agree with.

I urge Stephen Kerr not to move his alternative amendment—amendment 304—and I urge members not to support it if he does.

I move amendment 84.

I can give Ross Greer some comfort: I will be supportive of the approach that he has set out, which provides another opportunity for the Parliament, and this committee, to provide scrutiny. Of course, the committee will also have opportunities to scrutinise, for example, the chief inspector; indeed, I am sure that it will regularly call the chief inspector to give evidence, and quite rightly so. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 321 as it stands.

However, I agree with some of Pam Duncan-Glancy’s other intentions and am keen to explore with her how the chief inspector might be required to take account of relevant national priorities in education. I therefore encourage her not to move amendment 321 and, instead, to work with me to find an agreeable position ahead of stage 3.

The intent of Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 322 is commendable; however, that amendment partly overlaps with my amendments 89 and 90, which would require the chief inspector to have regard to the needs and interests of persons who are receiving British Sign Language education. On the other aspects of amendment 322, the requirement to have regard to the needs of those who have protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 is unnecessary, as the operations of the chief inspector will already be subject to the relevant requirements of that act and to the relevant public sector equality duty.

As we discussed last week, there is a further difficulty in that, for example, age is a protected characteristic, so the amendment would require the chief inspector to have regard to anyone who has an age.

As the matters that are raised in Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 322 will be addressed by my amendments 89 and 90 and the existing legal position in relation to the Equality Act 2010, I cannot support amendment 322, and I ask her not to move it.

I am happy to support Mr Greer’s points.

I will move on to the amendments that I have lodged, both of which support the bill’s implementation. Amendment 95 clarifies that the transitional provisions in the bill do not apply to the SQA’s functions or services that it delivers, other

“than in or as regards Scotland.”

Amendment 113 works along the same lines by providing that certain provisions in the bill concerning dissolution of the SQA may be commenced only once the SQA

“has no functions exercisable otherwise than in or as regards Scotland.”

Those important technical changes are being made in recognition of the good work that we have undertaken with the UK Government on an order under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998. Work is well under way on various provisions to support the bill’s implementation, such as updating references to the SQA in reserved legislation. In the light of the reach of the Education (Scotland) Act 1996, which established the SQA under an act of the UK Parliament, we are seeking to include in the order provisions that recognise that.

Under the amendments, the SQA will continue to be dissolved by the bill, but the amended provisions now reflect the order in which things are to take place. The amended provisions are designed to work in tandem with the provisions of the section 104 order to deliver our policy to replace the SQA with qualifications Scotland.