Seòmar agus comataidhean

I understand—or I think that I understand—the cabinet secretary’s point. I am not seeking, through amendment 304, to restrict an inspector’s ability to inspect schools in the way that they, as an independently operating agent, feel is appropriate to the establishment that they are in. However, there are some issues common to the education system that deserve a proper underpinning in statute to ensure that they are looked at and that there is an independent voice speaking truth to power—to Parliament and Government—about what is happening in our schools, without fear or favour.

I understand the discomfort about there being too much detail in the amendment, but if there is not sufficient understanding of what the detail leads to, we are no further forward. It is great that we will have an independent inspector. My party, among others, has campaigned for that development, which I think we welcome, but at the same time, we need to be sure that the inspections are of a nature and a culture, and have sufficient elements, to address the fundamental issues that we all know exist in the system.

I will move on to the next pillar, which is the morale and wellbeing of teachers. I know that the cabinet secretary is well aware that that is a fundamental issue, the root causes of which we would probably all broadly agree on. Including the morale and wellbeing of teachers is deliberate on my part. I believe that it is a necessary cultural intervention, which I will come back to with my later amendments.

John Mason makes a good point. The issue is not unique to this situation. Whenever there is an evaluation or assessment of a workplace, behaviours would have to be evidenced that demonstrate that certain situations are prevailing. It is not just about opinion. It would be evidenced by, as I say, demonstrated behaviours and reported incidents, because we need to listen to our teachers.

I have a concern, which I will come back to later, that our teachers feel a little beaten down and do not feel sufficiently confident in their own voice to speak up for themselves. The EIS has repeatedly raised concerns about the nature of inspections and how they might lead to the undermining of teacher professionalism, with members reporting that the process is often stressful, unpredictable and poorly aligned with educational priorities.

Amendment 304 is an attempt to address that by asserting that inspections engage with and give weight to the views and professional expertise of educators. It puts their voice at the centre of the inspection. That does not mean that the inspectors must accept every view uncritically, as John Mason says. It means that they must recognise that teaching is a profession, and that teachers are not merely implementers of policy but reflective practitioners with insight, experience and skill. To go back to my earlier points about school violence, we need to listen more carefully, and directly, to our teachers.

I will move my remarks along, as I can tell that I am testing the patience of the committee, but these are important considerations.

A growing proportion of newly qualified teachers are being placed on temporary or short-term contracts. I understand the business logic behind that, but it is leading to instability in staffing and less consistency for learners. That lack of permanence and continuity undermines a school’s ability to establish and maintain a strong culture of discipline and respect. Younger, more inexperienced staff with limited classroom management experience and minimal job security are being asked to manage increasingly complex behaviours in settings with reduced staffing, fewer classroom assistants and rising levels of need.

It is vital that inspections ensure that not only pupils but teaching professionals are safe and looked after, which is why I have included provision for that in amendment 304. For an inspection to be truly effective, it must assess whether the school has all the skills, expertise and personnel that it needs in order to be successful. There is no point in a school’s having first-class facilities without the correct—or enough—personnel to utilise those.

Amendment 304 requires inspectors to take account of

“the type of employment contract held by teachers and staff in the establishment”

and

“the number of teachers in the establishment who ... are completing probationary service, or ... are newly qualified teachers, having completed their probationary service no more than 5 years before the date of the inspection”.

That is essential to understanding the culture and diversity of experience in a school. If there is no diversity of experience, an establishment is less likely to succeed. We must take that into account when inspecting schools.

Putting all those elements together, including my catch-all at the end of amendment 304, we have a coherent framework that aligns inspection with the broader values and goals of Scottish education: equity, excellence, wellbeing, professionalism and learner empowerment. Without such alignment, inspection risks becoming a hindrance rather than a help. With the elements that I have described, inspection can become a key driver of change and improvement.

I know that I have gone on a bit, but, as members can probably tell, I feel passionately about the opportunity to transform the culture in our schools that having an independent chief inspector will bring.

It is about not just changing how we inspect our schools, but the purpose of inspection. It is about saying that what matters most in Scottish education is not just that our learners achieve, but that they thrive, progress and are taught by professionals who are trusted and respected. That is what amendment 304 enshrines. It describes the standard that is worthy of being aspired to. I therefore commend amendment 304 to the committee.

Some of you will be thinking that I am making up for my lack of attendance last Wednesday night, but I genuinely believe in the elements of amendment 304 and I lay it before the committee for your consideration.

That is a fair point and I accept it as such. There is a famous old adage that, if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

If there is a singular need in our education system right now, it is to provide a friendly critical voice to educationalists and school leaders, to allow them the opportunity for improvement and change. Providing that through inspection is a critical benchmark opportunity. If it is done in the right way, with the right cultural approach—which is the theme that I and many others keep coming back to—it might, as opposed to what happens in other jurisdictions, become an experience and an opportunity that school leaders and teachers look forward to. I know that the cabinet secretary, given her professional experience, is perhaps enjoying that comment rather too much. However, at the end of the day, if someone is leaning in to help and support you with the challenges that you have professionally, that is usually seen as a good thing.

It would be a really positive benefit of the bill if we established an inspections culture whereby school leaders, teachers and other staff felt that they were going to get some benefit—directly, professionally and personally, in their work environment—through an inspection. Although that perhaps sounds to some people’s ears like an ambition that might be beyond reach at the moment, I do not think that it should be. We should be planning a culture change with the new office that we are establishing, which means that that is the appropriate attitude to be brought to every inspection.

I am sorry that the committee has to listen to me again, but it just so happens that the amendments that have come up are in my name.

I agree with what Ross Greer said. It is not about dealing with complaints; it is about raising serious concerns—specifically, concerns that rest within the public interest remit in the statutory definition of whistleblowing.

It is important that I declare an interest. I have a long-standing connection with WhistleblowersUK, which is a not-for-profit organisation that supports whistleblowers. It is also a campaigning group that seeks to change the law to provide proper protections for whistleblowers. The issue has been a long-term interest of mine, because I genuinely believe that whistleblowers can be a positive antidote to some of the toxicity that can arise in closed cultures.

Amendments 315 and 348 are not merely about improving administrative processes; they are also about sending a powerful message about culture, trust and integrity in our schools and educational bodies. We must legislate not only for structures but for values. Among those values must be the protection of truth-telling, the safety of those who speak up and the accountability of institutions to those they serve. Amendments 315 and 348 seek to provide those values.

The amendments are not intended to be small bureaucratic changes. They are about encouraging moral courage, institutional integrity and the creation of a culture in which staff at all levels feel safe to speak up when they see that something is wrong and that it is in the public interest that they do so.

To be clear, whistleblowing saves systems from failure. It is not a nuisance that is to be tolerated and it is not disloyalty. It is the front-line defence of standards and safety. It means protecting the public interest and ensuring that the best interests of pupils, parents and the wider public are safeguarded at all times. That is particularly vital in education, and I believe that the cabinet secretary appreciates that. Schools are closed environments, power is hierarchical—that is particularly true in an educational establishment—and cultures can and do become toxic. When issues such as mismanagement, safeguarding failures, curriculum malpractice and the bullying of staff or pupils arise, the instinct too often, sadly, is to deny, deflect or retaliate.

In recent years, we have seen, tragically and repeatedly, what happens when staff feel that they cannot speak up. Across the public sector, we have seen whistleblowers suffer for doing the right thing. Careers have been ended, reputations have been shattered, and isolation, stress and even mental breakdown have followed. In many cases, the underlying issues were eventually proven to be real. We will all have had constituency casework that relates to the examples that I am citing.

The education sector is no different. Teachers, support staff and senior leaders across Scotland have shared—often anonymously—stories of having tried to raise concerns about child safety, exam integrity and leadership failures, only to be warned off, ignored or subject to disciplinary action. The Scottish Parliament has an opportunity in the bill to act to prevent that culture from persisting. We must, united, send a message that whistleblowing is not a betrayal but is a form of professional leadership. It is an expression of ethical responsibility and an act of service in defence of the public interest.

The amendments are modelled in part on the independent national whistleblowing officer, or INWO, role that was established in the national health service in Scotland in 2021. That role provides a clear, safe and structured route for NHS staff to raise concerns about wrongdoing or malpractice in their workplace. It guarantees that those concerns will be treated with seriousness, confidentiality and fairness, and it sits outside the management hierarchy.

Why should teachers, classroom assistants, early years workers and college lecturers be afforded any less protection? The argument for parity is overwhelming. The stakes in education are no less high than in health. Learner safety, wellbeing and outcomes depend on the honesty and responsiveness of institutions. The public trust that is placed in our schools is immense. When that trust is breached, the system must not silence or sideline those who speak up; it must embrace them. For the sake of pupils, for the peace of mind of parents and for the reputation of public education as a whole, we must protect the right to speak up in the public interest.

It is right that I mention the psychological and career toll that unprotected whistleblowing can take. Too many professionals who have spoken up have found themselves subtly or not so subtly punished—excluded from promotion, subject to hostile appraisals, moved between schools or stripped of informal support. Often, their colleagues fall silent for fear of guilt by association. Whistleblowing, in those instances, is a lonely and painful road. It should not be so. If the Scottish education system is to retain talented and ethical professionals, it must ensure that raising a concern does not become a career-ending decision. My amendments embed that principle.

My intention in the amendments is to create a whistleblowing framework, which is a practical and powerful way to reassure potential whistleblowers that the listening is real and to give every professional a route to be heard, even when their line management has failed them.

The approach is fully consistent with the direction of travel in Scottish public life. The whistleblowing officer role in the NHS, which I mentioned, was created following decades of failure in healthcare, with staff knowing about risks but feeling unable to speak. The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, under whose auspices the INWO sits, has made it clear that every sector should have whistleblowing protections that are tailored to the sector’s structures and culture, and my amendments seek to say loudly that it is time for education to follow.

I will expand on something that Ross Greer said earlier. Some people might say that we already have grievance procedures and staff complaint schemes. I would argue that those are not enough, because grievance procedures are internal and subject to management discretion. They are often used against whistleblowers. They do not have the independence, transparency or moral authority that whistleblowing frameworks require.

Other people might ask whether a whistleblowing framework will encourage vexatious complaints, but experience shows otherwise. Where whistleblowing systems are well designed, vexatiousness is rare, and it can be identified and addressed. The answer to misuse is not to deny use. The answer to due process is not silence.

Some may worry about workload or bureaucracy. Again, the NHS model shows that whistleblowing offices can operate efficiently when there are clear thresholds, defined procedures and proportionate oversight. They do not need to be large or costly; they need to be credible and trusted.

The moral case to support the amendments is clear. The policy precedent in the NHS is strong and the bill is the legislative vehicle to bring in what the amendments propose. We must now act. The amendments are not just about good governance; they are statements of values. They say to every teacher, learning assistant and administrator, “If you see something wrong, we want you to tell us. We will listen. We will protect you. We will act.” That is the message that the amendments send and the infrastructure that amendment 348 would provide. Together, the amendments offer Scotland a national education system that is open, honest and accountable from the inside out.

I will speak only to my amendment 319 and in support of amendment 170, in the name of Sue Webber. These are short but significant amendments that seek to align the operation of the new inspection system with the highest standards of transparency, inclusion and responsiveness. They sit pretty comfortably with the debate that we have just had on the previous group.

Amendment 319 would require the chief inspector, in exercising any of their functions, to do so in a way that ensures effective communication and engagement with all stakeholders in the education system, including learners, parents, carers, educators, education authorities and national bodies, on the foundational principle that those who are affected by public service delivery should have the opportunity to engage meaningfully with how those services are scrutinised and improved. The amendment would bring that principle into the heart of the chief inspector’s statutory duties.

Amendment 170, which I support, complements that by requiring the chief inspector to

“consider all areas of work by the educational establishment”

and to

“consider outcomes for persons undertaking qualifications in the educational establishment”.

I refer to the OECD review of the curriculum for excellence, which noted that stakeholders in Scotland often feel disconnected from national agencies in decision making. It recommended stronger consultation, co-construction and dialogue, and the amendments would operationalise that vision. Similarly, the Muir review made it clear that national bodies must engage more directly and transparently with schools and communities, that that engagement must be structured and not ad hoc, and that it must be part of how the chief inspector operates and not a box-ticking exercise. That is what amendment 319 would achieve.

Of course.

Okay, five years—great. Our problem is that—[Interruption.].

I am sure that they will feature in the cabinet secretary’s statement and that there will be questions along those lines, but we are talking about the Education (Scotland) Bill. It is appropriate for us to lodge amendments that we consider would be helpful in giving the bill the value that it ought to have in transforming educational opportunities for young people in Scotland. It is appropriate for the committee to discuss wellbeing, for example, which is a systemic issue that inspections must confront directly.

Amendment 304 would require the chief inspector to consider the extent to which learners’ needs were being met and their wellbeing safeguarded. The key point about why the amendment has some worth is that it would provide a statutory basis for more serious and consistent inspection of behaviour, discipline and safety in our schools.

As amendment 337 is consequential on my amendment 304, which I did not move, I will not be moving it, either.

I will restrict my remarks to amendments 346 and 347, both in my name.

I will again speak to the importance of robust and regular reporting on the overall performance of Scotland’s education system. My amendments go to the heart of what accountability in education should mean. They are about ensuring that the new system of education governance established by the bill does not just monitor individual schools but keeps a watchful, transparent eye on the system as a whole.

Amendment 346 would place a duty on the chief inspector to publish a comprehensive national-level report every year, assessing the overall performance of the education system in Scotland. Those reports would have to include a summary of the findings of the inspections carried out during the reporting period in relation to the performance of the Scottish education system, an assessment of the aims of current education policy in Scotland, the implementation of current education policy in Scotland and any recommendations on education policy and its implementation.

The amendments are not about adding layers of bureaucracy; they are about anchoring our system in evidence, openness and long-term thinking. Without periodic national-level assessments of performance, we cannot claim to be running a genuinely accountable system.

The chief inspector will have privileged insight into what is happening across all sectors of education. They will have access to the full range of inspection data, thematic reviews, stakeholder feedback and trends in quality assurance. That position carries a national responsibility, and the system must report not only on individual establishments, but on patterns, progress, gaps and risks.

As things stand, Education Scotland publishes an annual report, but it is often descriptive and selective. The new chief inspector, as established by the bill, must be required to go further. They must tell the full story of Scottish education—its strengths, its weaknesses and its trajectory. Amendment 346 would mandate that responsibility. That is entirely consistent with the wider vision laid out in the Muir review, which called for clearer structures, better accountability and a renewed focus on improvement across the system. It also aligns with recommendations from the OECD review of curriculum for excellence.

In short, our national education system must be able to see itself clearly. We must be able to measure where we are, track where we are going and reflect on how we are doing. Such a report would also allow Parliament to engage more constructively with education. Too often, debate about our schools is driven by newspaper headlines, isolated statistics or anecdote.

Amendment 346 would allow the chief inspector to include in their report such themes or areas of focus as they judged relevant. That is important, because education is a dynamic, evolving field, and new challenges emerge. For instance, digital learning, post-Covid recovery, additional support needs and regional disparities might all merit special attention at different times, and amendment 346 would give the chief inspector the flexibility to spotlight those issues in a national context.

As I mentioned a few moments ago, the proposal is not inconsistent; rather, it is in line with international comparators. In jurisdictions such as Ontario, New Zealand and Finland, regular system-wide reports are published by independent bodies, and those reports are used to inform strategy, promote transparency and support dialogue between Government, the profession and the public. I believe that Scotland should be no different.

Finally, I note that these amendments would be not just a technical improvement but a statement of intent. They would say that we believe in evidence over spin, in scrutiny over secrecy, and in the power of democratic accountability to drive improvement. They would say that we are not afraid to ask hard questions, to look honestly at performance and to act on what we learn. Amendments 346 and 347 are not just amendments to the bill; they are an invitation to build a culture of learning at every level of our education system, including the Government. They reflect the values of professionalism, honesty and service, and they would give the chief inspector a national role worthy of the trust that the public place in Scottish education. I urge the committee to support both amendments.

I move amendment 346.