Chamber and committees

Thank you. Unless anyone has anything else to add on that, I will ask just one more question, because I am conscious of the amount of time that I have already taken up.

Damien, you have touched on the issue of TUPE costs for staff. Given that what we are talking about will largely be a transfer from SDS to the SFC, do you feel that you have had clarity from ministers—I want to find out whether Martin Boyle feels the same way—on the operational arrangements for the transfer of staff and the expectations regarding costs, the TUPE element, terms and conditions and so on?

Martin, what is your response to Audit Scotland’s reflections and the progress that has been made since then?

Before he does, I note that that is all very welcome, because the committee has, in the past, been critical of the Scottish Government’s lack of clear leadership and direction on the skills agenda but, as I said, that was only part of Audit Scotland’s criticism. The other part was about the lack of an effectively functioning relationship between SDS and the SFC, with poor communication, a lack of consensus and so on. Reaching consensus is obviously easier when both bodies receive the same ministerial direction. However, that aside—because it sounds as though the announcement in the next few weeks will provide a clear ministerial direction—have you addressed the issues that Audit Scotland raised about what was a dysfunctional relationship between the two bodies?

I would like to go back to the convener’s initial line of questioning on the premise for the bill and the reform, which Damien Yeates and the SDS board, in essence, reject. However, in 2022, Audit Scotland published a scathing report on the lack of skills alignment. The report partly criticised the lack of leadership from the Scottish Government, but the stand-out criticism was of the inability of SDS and the SFC to work together. The report’s third conclusion was clear:

“Current arrangements are unlikely to achieve the ambitions for skills alignment at the pace required”.

Could you reflect on that Audit Scotland report? We are three years on from the report, so have the issues relating to communication and lack of consensus between SDS and the SFC been addressed?

Thanks very much, both. That is really useful.

Are you perhaps looking for further clarity to come off the back of the bill in the form of secondary legislation? Should a lot of the clarity around the operational aspects of staffing come from ministers rather than being set out in legislation?

As much as I have views on the particular form that scrutiny should take, my general view is that one Parliament should not bind the next. It would be relatively unprecedented to put specific forms of scrutiny into primary legislation, and it would perhaps restrict our successors from adapting their approach to scrutiny in a way that is more appropriate to things that we cannot yet predict.

Ultimately, the decision would still rest with the Parliament, but I cannot assume that the form of scrutiny that I believe to be appropriate now will still be appropriate in five or 10 years’ time. I would not want our successors to have to change primary legislation in order to change what could be quite minor elements of their approach.

Amendment 40 seeks to make accessible versions of inspection reports available to learners, but it would build in flexibility, too, as we are talking about learners at very different ages and stages and in various settings. It would give the chief inspector, where they consider it appropriate, the ability to ensure that inspection reports would be presented in accessible formats to learners at the establishments involved, which would generally be schools. Although some schools communicate inspection results to pupils, others do not; moreover, headteachers have raised with me the possibility of councils interfering with such communications. Empowering the chief inspector in that role would, I think, mitigate some of those concerns about potential interference.

In some cases, the first time that pupils become aware of the outcome of an inspection at their school is when they see negative press coverage—if the result is negative—or hear hearsay and gossip in the local community. Placing such a requirement on the inspectorate itself would ensure consistency of approach, and it would remove the potential for spin on the part of the education authority or, indeed, the school management.

Amendment 40 would allow for flexibility, too. After all, it is clearly more appropriate to communicate inspection results directly to high school pupils than it is to do so to very young children in early learning and childcare settings. Given that it would build in that flexibility, I hope that members will be able to support amendment 40.

Amendment 11 would simply put into legislation something that happens in practice at the moment. The chief inspector currently sends a copy of a report to the establishment that has been inspected, before the report is published; however, there is nothing that says that they have to do so. It would be useful for us to set such practice as the minimum standard, in legislation, to ensure that it continues.

Amendment 18 is about ensuring that, in inspections, consideration is given to compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. Given the significant change in practice that is required across a number of areas as a result of that legislation, a consistent approach to checking on its implementation would be valuable, and it would catch many of the discussions that we have had so far on promoting the rights of children and young people in schools.

Amendment 20 is intended to ensure that valuable recommendations that are made by inspectors would be acted on, without ultimately requiring that to happen. These establishments—and we are talking about schools here—deserve a level of autonomy, but they should have regard to the reports; indeed, significant weight should be put on them. In that sense, amendment 20 pairs well with amendment 21.

In the interests of time, convener, I will finish there.

Amendment 21 covers what we have just discussed in relation to the previous group. My intention in this amendment and my amendment 20 in the previous group, which I agreed not to move but instead to work with the cabinet secretary on, is to ensure that the relevant establishments have due regard to any report about their own establishment and any relevant system-wide reports, thematic reports and so on. A high school should have regard to a report about itself, and it should also have due regard to any thematic review of numeracy, LGBT inclusion or whatever it may be.

Amendments 14 to 16 would simply change the time of the reporting period to align it with the academic year. My concern is that, if the reports do not align with the academic year, we will have a classic situation in which a report is published midway through the academic year and we then start to see creeping excuses such as, “We’re halfway through addressing that problem, so we can’t comment on it yet.” If we align the reports with the new full academic year, it will be harder to avoid the issues that are raised, and that would make a bit more practical sense.

That being said, I have lodged amendments 93 and 112 so that ministers may, by regulation in the future, modify the reporting period only after consultation with the chief inspector, the advisory council and anyone else they consider appropriate. That is because there can be unforeseen events—the pandemic was an obvious example of that. It would have been inconvenient, to say the least, to have had to produce an annual report at the height of the pandemic. However, in the subsequent year, I would not have wanted any requirements that limited the reports to 12 months, as that would have made it possible to write off months previous to that. One year may be missed because of a pandemic, for example, but I would want the subsequent report to cover and look back on an 18-month or 24-month period.

Amendments 93 and 112 are there simply to provide flexibility to change the reporting period in the future, with appropriate accountability.

Yes—that is fair.