Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am happy to.

Does the cabinet secretary not accept, though, that currently there are cultural barriers to people speaking up and reporting or raising concerns, and that the existing procedures have, when used, resulted in individuals feeling that they have effectively committed a career-ending act by speaking up? That reinforces the need for—as Miles Briggs said, and as I said in my own remarks—a body that individuals with genuinely held concerns can approach and seek advice from.

This is the first of three amendments in my name that relate to the chief inspector’s annual report as a vehicle for ensuring transparency, scrutiny and public confidence in the inspection system. Together, the three amendments represent a way of ensuring that an annual report that is issued by the chief inspector is not simply a retrospective administrative document but a clear, accessible and purpose-driven statement of how the chief inspector has fulfilled their statutory functions and contributed to the continuous improvement of Scottish education.

Amendment 341 provides that the chief inspector must include

“the performance of relevant educational establishments during that financial year”

in their annual report. That would strengthen the current provisions in the bill by giving the annual report shape, focus and relevance, helping to move from passive reporting to active accountability. A robust annual report, laid before Parliament and scrutinised in public, is essential to the culture of transparency that we are trying to build across the education system. It is not enough to carry out inspections; the chief inspector must also explain what has been learned from them, how those lessons are being shared and what changes are being driven as a result.

Recent criticisms of Education Scotland have included concerns about the lack of responsiveness and clarity in how inspection findings are followed up and disseminated. Stakeholders, including teaching unions, parents and local authorities, have all called for a clearer and more meaningful inspection narrative. Amendment 341 ensures that the annual report provides that narrative, offering the Parliament and the public a window into performance and improvement.

That is not only about data; it is about impact. A well-crafted annual report should allow us to understand trends, where practice is improving, where challenges persist and where further support or reform might be required. It provides an opportunity for the chief inspector to reflect, set priorities and help to shape the national conversation about education.

I would like to reference international comparators. In countries such as the Netherlands and New Zealand, the annual reports of school inspectorates are major public documents that contribute directly to education policy and reform. I believe that Scotland must aspire to the same standard, which is what amendment 341 would help to achieve.

The amendment also aligns with the broader expectations of the Muir review and the OECD findings, which highlighted the importance of transparency and public engagement in system governance. An annual report should not be an internal document; it should be a tool of national reflection and improvement.

Amendment 341 would turn the annual report from a statutory formality into a meaningful strategic instrument. It would support the integrity of the inspection system, empower stakeholders and strengthen the public’s confidence in the quality and direction of Scottish education. I urge the committee to consider and support it.

I move amendment 341.

This is probably going to give you a clue as to how I wish to proceed with the amendments, but where the actual function sits could be the subject of further discussion. To be frank, I am not saying that what is written down in the amendments is the final total of the consideration that might be given to the office of whistleblower.

That is the critical thing. I think that it is very important that this be a clearly designated office. I come back to the old saying about something doing what it says on the tin. If it says on the tin that this is the office of the whistleblower, whistleblowers ought to feel confident, even if it has another title. I accept all of that, and I am open to considering whatever changes might be necessary to provide the basis for legitimising whistleblowing and to make it a means of supporting cultural change in education.

That underpins the importance of what we have in place for NHS Scotland, where we have an independent whistleblower’s office. The people who work in that setting are people who have the experience and professionalism to be able to make an initial judgment based on what they hear, hence the importance of establishing a whistleblowing office.

I accept what the cabinet secretary says about where the office sits, but the bill is still an opportunity to address the issue, and the longer we put it off, the harder it becomes. As we saw with NHS Scotland and health boards, organisations will close ranks to ensure that the process of establishing such an office takes as long as possible.

The proposal in my amendments is an attempt to address culture transformation, which I think—I hope—we all agree is an important aspect of the bill. If the cabinet secretary thinks that a three-year inspection cycle is too much—although it is not considered so in other parts of the United Kingdom, by the way; I wonder whether she might comment on that—what does she think the frequency of inspections should be? They do not happen every three years at the moment. When she talks about the need for more inspectors and all the rest of it for a three-year cycle, I suggest that the same would be true for the creation of a four or five-year cycle, given the current sporadic nature of inspections.

I am sorry for going on a bit, but it goes back to the point that Pam Duncan-Glancy made: if this is not the place to set the benchmark of frequency, where is? That is my question. What frequency does the cabinet secretary have in mind?

That is not my argument. Amendment 306 lays in statute what the frequency of inspections would be; I am not leaving it up to ministers or anybody else. I still want to put it in the bill, because that way it commands the attention of all concerned.

As I said, I am grateful to colleagues who have intervened to point out the arithmetic of the number of inspections, but we have heard that we do not have inspectors and that we do not have the strength and depth to be able to perform those inspections on anything like the routine basis that they are done in England, for example. I do not want Scottish schools—

Of course.

I am grateful to Martin Whitfield for his intervention, but I am not sure that, under the very simple terms of amendment 289 in my name, what he suggests is likely to arise. All that the amendment does is to seek to establish a single framework. It would give the SCQF Partnership the statutory role of establishing a single framework for Scotland’s qualifications; it then goes to say that the qualifications would do exactly as has been identified in Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments in this group. With such an approach, the levels and points would be indicated, which would give real clarity to learners as to what their qualifications stacked up to. As I will go on to say, it would make things very clear to employers, too.

The SCQF Partnership already fulfils that valuable role. I take the member’s point in that respect, but what I am trying to do is to create some clarity. I am not, as the cabinet secretary has suggested, trying to add confusion—I am trying to create crystal-clear clarity about what this body does and the value that it brings to the total education landscape in Scotland. I am trying to give the SCQF Partnership a clear and legitimate statutory role that aligns with the functions that it already performs in practice. I am not seeking to duplicate anything—I am just seeking to give crystal-clear clarity about what the SCQF Partnership does.

Coming back to John Mason’s point, I recognise that the partnership is a registered Scottish charity that performs critical work in benchmarking, recognising and comparing qualifications and ensuring that they align with recognised credit levels. Nevertheless, I think that its excellent work operates in a somewhat grey space. It is influential, yes, but it has no defined legal mandate. I do not think that that is sustainable, because—and here I go back to the findings of the OECD—we already have so many bodies. Let us give the SCQF Partnership the distinction of being recognised in law for the excellent work that it does.

That is what amendment 289 proposes to do: it proposes to give the SCQF Partnership formal responsibility for accrediting qualifications to ensure that they meet published requirements. Giving the partnership the responsibility for defining and comparing qualifications in Scotland by establishing a unified framework that assigns levels and credit points to learning programmes will ensure clarity, accessibility and transferability across the education and employment sectors. The amendment seeks neither to displace qualifications Scotland nor to duplicate its work. Instead, it strengthens a valuable partner and gives learners, providers and employers clarity and confidence that qualifications accredited through the SCQF are subject to transparent public standards and institutional governance.

I will move on very quickly to amendment 229, which relates to the definition and role of the SCQF in the bill. It appears designed to formalise the framework itself, which I would support, but it does not assign the functions in the way that my amendment 289 does. That is why I think that amendment 289 has some value in the context of this group. Amendment 229 is helpful, but, as I have said, it does not set out the bolder articulation of the purpose of the SCQF in the way that amendment 289 does.

I welcome amendment 231, although, again, I think that it would be helpful to have amendment 289 alongside it, for the sake of clarity.

Amendment 238 seeks to ensure that qualifications Scotland recognises the role of the SCQF. That already happens in practice, but the amendment gives it statutory backing. However, although I support its intent, I suggest that it would benefit from being nested within the more comprehensive structural definitions that I have included in amendment 289.

In conclusion, amendment 289 is a pragmatic proposal that seeks to give crystal-clear clarity to the education landscape when it comes to the salient institutions that learners, employers and others need to know about and appreciate. Being able to say what something does—I recall the old adage about something doing what it says on the tin—is what amendment 289 is all about. By creating a clear understanding of what organisations exist to do, it enhances coherence in the system and will make Scottish qualifications and the Scottish qualifications landscape more transparent, more navigable and more understandable, not just for professionals and institutions but, as I have said—and this is the critical group that I have in mind with amendment 289—for learners themselves.

I commend amendment 289 to the committee.

In the light of what I have heard the cabinet secretary say, I have a relatively easy task because I am more than happy to collaborate with her in respect of amendment 236.

This group of amendments goes to the very heart of why we are in the place where we have arrived. It is down to the issue of trust, which the cabinet secretary herself has highlighted. Comments from Ross Greer and Pam Duncan-Glancy underlined the importance of this legislation in restoring trust. Amendment 236 is important because it answers the fundamental question how a national qualifications body should approach its work and we are trying to be helpful by indicating in the bill what that approach should be.

Amendment 236 would insert an additional general duty on qualifications Scotland to act in a way that respects the professional judgment of teachers and practitioners. That principle of professional respect is not just symbolic but crucial. I am afraid that the historic breakdown of trust between the SQA and its many interconnecting audiences and collaborators that we are all talking about is especially true when it comes to teachers.

Ken Muir said in his review that there was a consistent call in the feedback received for a rebalancing of the relationship between schools and national agencies, and that teachers and school leaders feel unheard and constrained by inflexible systems and a lack of professional trust. Amendment 236 responds directly to that, as does the whole group of amendments. Qualifications Scotland should not merely serve learners in a vacuum; it should work in partnership with and respect those who teach, mentor and assess learners daily.

It is inarguable that education is in a tricky spot at the moment on any international comparison. Scottish educational outcomes have declined in the past decade or so. The SQA has failed repeatedly and the lack of trust in that institution is a key reason why we are here in the first place.

To many people, Education Scotland is an organisation with little influence or positive impact on education—a point that I made earlier and which I will no doubt come back to. Many parents feel estranged from their child’s school life, and many teachers fear that the institutions, both educational and parliamentary, will not have their back when needed. That must change.

Amendment 236, along with the others that I have lodged, not least my amendments on whistleblowing, aim to steer education back to where there is a broad consensus that it needs to be. If our education system is to live up to its great heritage, whereby it is recognised as world-leading, and key to why Scots pioneered the modern world—a subject on which we could all wax lyrical for a long time—with great inventions and institutions, we must put teachers back in the driving seat of the curriculum.

As it stands, the bill includes the duty to

“promote and advance education and training”

and to

“have regard to the needs and interests of persons using its services”.

That formulation is repeated in other statutory bodies, but those are generalised statements. Amendment 236 proposes something precise. The theme of our debate on this grouping has been having something more precise and responsive to the issues identified as being at the heart of why we need a reform process and the bill.

There is also a need to treat Scotland’s educators not as delivery agents but as valued professionals. If we are to ensure lasting change, we must define and legislate for the values that will guide that work. Amendment 236, in particular, puts front and centre the respect for teaching professionals that has too often been neglected by national agencies. I would urge the committee to support it, but I do not think that I need to include that sentiment, because I will follow what has been recommended by the cabinet secretary. I will not move the amendment, but I hope that it comes back in a form that is more acceptable to us all.