Chamber and committees

I will not comment on responsibilities that fall outwith my portfolio, but I take the member’s point on the approach that has been taken in the NHS. My point was about the existing systems, which are important. Members will be well acquainted with the ombudsman. If parents are not content with taking that approach, they can raise with ministers their concerns that a local authority or other responsible body for a school has failed to carry out its statutory duties. If ministers are satisfied that there has been a failure, they can intervene or order the local authority or school to deliver on their duties.

Given the broad framing of the chief inspector’s proposed additional complaints and whistleblowing functions, significant work would need to be undertaken to scope the likely costs of staffing and other resourcing implications, but we anticipate that the costs for both could be substantial. Although I cannot specify the costs at this point, I can say with some certainty that taking on such functions would draw the chief inspector’s focus away from where I firmly believe that it needs to be, which is inspecting the quality of education and using their expertise and judgment to support improvement.

I hope that members agree that the complaints and whistleblowing functions that Mr Briggs and Mr Kerr suggest are not necessarily appropriate for the chief inspector and likely to have significant resource requirements. Any changes to the processes that exist for raising concerns and the implications of those for children and young people would need to be properly considered and consulted on.

More broadly, my commitment to progress discussion with COSLA, ADES and others and to keep the committee updated on that will, I hope, give members some reassurance that, although I cannot support the amendments, I understand and am cognisant of their underpinning concerns. If amendment 157 is pressed and the other amendments in the group are moved, I ask members to vote against them.

I give the member the reassurance that I am more than happy to have those discussions with COSLA and ADES and to give the committee a fulsome update on the progress being made on those points.

It is important to set out that, as members will be aware, there are clear and very established routes for raising and escalating complaints and concerns within our education system, including through the General Teaching Council for Scotland. I am particularly concerned that layering additional functions on to the chief inspector’s role would risk further complication, which would not be helpful to those with concerns, and would also draw the chief inspector away from their core role in the system.

I understand the member’s point. We have discussed the issue, but one person’s complaint can be another person’s whistleblowing incident. How we identify and determine what might constitute a whistleblowing incident is a challenge, but I take the member’s point—

I take the member’s point that there is a slight difference, but amendment 350 places a corresponding duty on Education Scotland to collaborate with the chief inspector. We discussed some of that last week, but in respect of both amendments, it is relevant that Education Scotland is an executive agency of Scottish ministers. As I have already highlighted in discussions on earlier groups, statutory duties cannot be conferred on such agencies, because they do not have a legal personality separate from that of Scottish ministers. In legal terms, strictly speaking, there is nothing on which that duty would operate.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 318 permits the chief inspector to work with educational establishments and local authorities to co-ordinate support for young people and their parents. That amendment extends the remit of the chief inspector significantly beyond inspecting to support improvement and into the realm of co-ordinating support, including for individuals and their parents. As well as having a significant resourcing implication, it is not at all clear how it would operate with the primary responsibilities of local councils, and it would risk causing confusion. On that basis, I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move those amendments.

I accept what the member has just said, and I recognise the challenge. I am just not sure that we get to that place via an amendment such as amendment 318, which could interact with legislation stipulating that the statutory responsibility for education rests with local authorities. That is the point that I was making in relation to confusion between the role of the chief inspector and the role of local authorities.

There is a broader challenge, as the member mentioned, and it is an issue that I often discuss with the committee and in the chamber in relation to my responsibilities and those of local government. I am not sure that that can be addressed via a pretty narrow amendment and the proposal in relation to the co-ordination of support that we are discussing this evening.

Amendment 169 would require the chief inspector to have regard to the statutory roles and responsibilities of the persons and bodies that they work with. There is already an obligation on all public bodies to ensure that they exercise their functions appropriately, and that is something that they do by necessity. Making express provision for that is perhaps unnecessary, and the problem that it seeks to address is not entirely clear. Perhaps Mr Briggs can set that out when he speaks to the amendments in the group, but, as it stands, I ask him not to move amendment 169 if he is content with my explanation. However, I will not stand in the way of the amendment if Mr Briggs decides to move it.

I move amendment 87.

I very much take on board Mr Rennie’s points. I alluded to the situation as it stands, but he makes substantive points. I note that there will be a responsibility for the committee to respond to inspection reports, the laying of which will be part of the chief inspector’s role. That will be an opportunity for members of the committee to challenge and provide feedback in regard to the evaluation of safeguarding and a variety of areas in the inspection report more broadly that might feel pertinent. Therefore, there will be an opportunity for MSPs to feed into that and to challenge it, which is important. However, I will take away the points that Mr Rennie has made today, because I accept the challenge in relation to the issues that he has raised.

I thank Miles Briggs for his interest in that point. He might recall that, in late August or early September 2023, not long after I was appointed, we had issues in relation to RAAC and the proposed closure of a number of buildings. It was an issue across the United Kingdom but, in Scotland, we worked at pace with the Scottish heads of property services—SHOPS—network to identify affected schools, provide reassurance and seek information from local authorities.

There are broader issues in relation to school buildings and who owns the documentation that Miles Briggs spoke about. We currently understand that that is local authorities but, sometimes, there can be attention at national level when there are very challenging incidents. RAAC is the example that Miles Briggs has provided and that I have experience of, but there have been much more challenging incidents in recent years, as he alluded to. I would be more than happy to speak to officials and to Miles Briggs on how we might be able to address some of the concerns that he has raised today, although I do not think that that is addressed by the bill that we are discussing this evening.

Amendment 87 would require the chief inspector to have regard to the desirability of working in collaboration with others where appropriate. I lodged the amendment to further strengthen effective communication and collaboration between national bodies and to support the chief inspector to work with others.

I agree with what I understand to be the intention of Mr Briggs’s and Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments, and it is clear that we have consensus on the critical role of collaborative working. However, I do not believe that the specificity provided by Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments is either necessary or appropriate.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 317 requires the chief inspector to collaborate with Education Scotland. Amendment 87 will encompass that collaboration and further require the chief inspector to collaborate with other bodies where appropriate.

I welcome the intention behind amendments 308, 165 and 332, which look to address recent concerns regarding child protection and safeguarding processes in educational establishments and public bodies. Members will know that protecting children from harm is a key priority for the Government.

I want to talk to the existing practice. His Majesty’s inspectors currently evaluate and report on quality and improvement in Scottish education using the “How good is our school?” framework, or HGIOS, which specifically includes child protection and safeguarding as a quality indicator. If inspectors are concerned about weaknesses in any establishment’s approach to safeguarding, they can return to further evaluate the processes and determine whether that establishment has made improvements. In addition, as we have already discussed in relation to a previous group of amendments, ministers currently have the ability to request a special inspection when there are specific concerns, and that should be the case in the future.

Amendment 88, which I have lodged, looks to give an assurance to stakeholders and the wider system—I think that that is the point that Mr Greer has made—regarding the existing practice for inspecting child protection and safeguarding processes by providing in legislation that the chief inspector must have regard to the need for adequate safeguarding and child protection arrangements in the exercise of all their functions.

As inspectors are not on the ground except when carrying out an inspection, it appears to me that they are not well placed to provide any on-going oversight. The intention of my amendment is therefore not to give the chief inspector oversight of such arrangements, as would appear to be the case in Mr Briggs’s amendment 165, which provides that inspectors would

“oversee the enforcement of child protection and safeguarding measures”.

Notably, as is currently the case in Education Scotland, the chief inspector will have strong links with other audit bodies and inspectorates, and I believe in the importance of listening to children and young people and ensuring that those who deliver education understand the impact that it has. My amendment 88 looks to address both those points, and I strongly encourage all members to support it.

I hope that that clarifies the inspectorate’s current role and that which the chief inspector will continue to have once the post is established, if my amendment is supported. In that context, I do not believe that amendments 308, 165 and 332 are strictly necessary.

More broadly, I note that the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland has indicated support for my amendment in preference to amendments 308 and 332. The commissioner has also indicated that they wish amendment 88 to be strengthened with reference to education authorities. I am pleased to be able to reassure the commissioner that the definition of relevant educational establishments in section 31(1) of the bill already includes education authorities as well as schools and others.

I appreciate that Ms Smith is not here this evening, so I will direct my commentary with regard to amendment 24, on the inspection of school building safety documentation, to Mr Briggs. I believe that the amendment goes beyond the remit of education inspection, although I accept some of the points and the rationale behind what he has said this evening.

HM inspectors are education professionals and would not necessarily have the experience or qualifications to assess the adequacy of building safety documentation. It is also worth noting that, as another member mentioned, health and safety is not devolved to the Scottish Parliament. When a local authority does not comply with regulations, it is for the health and safety executive to determine the severity of that breach and what enforcement action is appropriate. Therefore, I am not able to support those amendments.

I found this group of amendments to be very thought provoking and helpful, and I thank members for their constructive approach and for giving more information this evening about the intention behind each of their amendments.

The upholding of high standards in educational governance and accountability is fundamental to our education system, and Mr Kerr’s amendment 319 helpfully brings that to the fore. I am therefore happy to support the amendment, which will ensure that high standards are not only front of mind for the chief inspector—which I know will be the case—but set out in legislation, too.

As Mr Briggs is not going to move amendment 168, I will move on to amendment 170. I am not of the view that it is quite necessary, on the basis that inspection can—and does—take lots of different forms. Under the current provisions in the bill, the chief inspector will hold autonomy over the types of models to be used in carrying out inspection, including the degree of any inspection. That will be subject to significant consultation—including, quite rightly, with the Parliament.

Furthermore, although the amendment would not require every inspection to be detailed and to cover every aspect of the establishment’s work, the fact is that, in practice, requiring the chief inspector to have regard to the “desirability” of all inspections being “detailed” and all-encompassing might have the unintended consequence of limiting the chief inspector in putting models in place, including those that are agile, proportionate and efficient, and which are based on particular circumstances. For example, the amendment might be unhelpful when it comes to carrying out a special inspection, where ministers have requested the chief inspector to secure the inspection of an establishment in relation to specific issues, when there will be a need to focus specifically on areas of concern.