Seòmar agus comataidhean

On amendment 319, I agree that the inspectorate should set high standards in relation to education governance, but my issue with that is about upholding standards. It is surely for the establishments that are being inspected to uphold those standards, rather than for the inspectorate. I am not sure how it would be empowered to do so.

The SDS submission makes interesting points about the proposed new definition of an apprenticeship in the bill. Essentially, is it based on—it is certainly aligned with—the one that the Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board settled on in 2019.

However, there have been quite a few developments since then. The board has done a lot of work on the definition of an apprenticeship to make sure that there is alignment with Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework Partnership qualifications, for example.

That concern about the definition has not particularly been reflected in the submissions from external organisations that I have seen—the focus is much more on the definition of a private provider. I would be interested to hear whether the RSE or Prosper have a view on the definition of an apprenticeship and whether you think that what is in the bill is adequate to capture that, or whether we should take a more comprehensive approach or perhaps set more specific standards.

In that case, I will come back in on later themes, if that is okay, convener.

Is that the same for RSE?

I agree entirely with the principle behind amendment 331. I agree with that behind amendment 334, too, but I am concerned that, as it is currently drafted, it would cover only students and teachers or lecturers, which would exclude support staff in the school and anybody else who might be involved. It would exclude all staff other than the educators.

I agree with the principle behind all the amendments in the group. My only concern is that, although amendment 308 talks about safeguarding requirements in general, others in the group—amendment 332, the cabinet secretary’s amendment 88 and Miles Briggs’s amendments—talk specifically about children and young people. Although I agree that specific arrangements are needed for children and young people, a wider safeguarding responsibility exists, particularly when it comes to vulnerable adults.

I should declare at this point that I have membership of the protecting vulnerable groups scheme.

If we agree to the principle of the amendments, is there perhaps a way to come back at stage 3 to make it clear that there are specific safeguarding duties in relation to children and young people but there are also wider safeguarding responsibilities towards everyone who is involved in or on the premises of an educational establishment—in particular, vulnerable adults?

I have a lot of sympathy for Mr Kerr’s amendment 315. Amendment 348, on the requirement to report, concerns me more, given that I hope—as I think that we would all hope—that, at least in some years, a relatively small number of complaints would be made via the proposed process. My worry is that, when we are talking about a small number of complaints that would have to be coalesced into a published report, the requirements on reporting that are in the amendment would be hard to reconcile with a need to make sure that there is absolute anonymity for whistleblowers and no prospect of jigsaw identification.

Amendments 38 and 39 are relatively simple amendments. Amendment 38 seeks to strengthen provisions in relation to the chief inspector and amendment 39 seeks to strengthen provisions in relation to the Scottish ministers. The amendments concern the range of groups that the chief inspector must consult in preparing the inspection plan and that the minister must consult when bringing forward the relevant regulations.

The wording that I have used in the amendments is

“such persons as the Chief Inspector considers representative of relevant educational establishments”—

that is, they should consult a representative range of schools in particular, although there are other establishments under the inspectorate’s purview. I chose the wording to make it clear that the expectation is not that they must consult every school in Scotland before engaging in the process, but that they will consult a representative group thereof and organisations that represent their interests.

With amendment 92, I am trying to address some of the concerns and areas of really important disagreement in the committee and in Parliament on where the inspectorate should sit and who it should be accountable to. Without going back to the previous debate about the independence of the inspectorate, I note that the amendment will require the chief inspector to lay a draft inspection plan before Parliament for 60 days. Parliament can then give feedback on the plan, and the chief inspector must have regard to that feedback. The feedback will not be mandatory. We can be open and honest about the fact that Parliament is not always right, but our feedback should be taken seriously nonetheless, and any resolution that is passed by Parliament should be given due regard. The amendment is intended to address the concern about parliamentary oversight of the inspectorate and how it goes about its duties.

I urge committee members to oppose the cabinet secretary’s amendments 92A and 92B, which seek to shorten the timescale from 60 to 40 days. We should all reflect on the capacity challenges that Parliament and committees face, and 60 days is my attempt at a compromise. Originally, I was more inclined towards 90 or 120 days. The inspection plan is not a document that should ever be produced in a rush or with urgency. There should be time to consider it, and 60 days will strike the right balance. I recognise the concerns about having a period of 90 or 120 days, but 60 days strikes an appropriate balance, while 40 days would provide challenges to Parliament, particularly given that, as we are all aware, circumstances often dictate that we must turn our attention to other matters. The impact of the situation at the University of Dundee on this committee’s work plan is an example.

For those reasons, I hope that members will support amendment 92, but I cannot support amendments 92A or 92B.

I take the cabinet secretary’s point in relation to the cross-over between amendment 321 and the one that I did not move in an earlier group. However, when it comes to how I will vote on amendment 321, if it is moved, it would certainly give me some comfort if the cabinet secretary were able to jump ahead a little bit and indicate the Government’s position on my amendment in a later group—that is, amendment 92, which relates to consultation with the Parliament in preparing the inspection plan and would require the chief inspector to lay a draft of the plan before Parliament for 60 days. If the Government were to agree to that, it would build in direct engagement between the chief inspector and the Parliament without getting entangled in the issues that we explored in relation to my amendment 60.

I acknowledge that amendments 317 and 350 will not be moved, because of the drafting issue, but my broader concern about all the amendments in the group is that they go against the direction of travel in the bill. Although, in certain circumstances, collaboration is not just desirable but is what the OECD has told us that we need more of in Scottish education, what we are seeking to do here is to split the inspectorate from Education Scotland, because of the inherent conflict of interest.

I worry about the language in amendment 317, which is that the chief inspector

“must ... work in collaboration with Education Scotland”

on any matters to which their functions relate. However, that will relate to most of their functions, as they are both education bodies. Does that not go against what we are trying to do in the bill, which is to create a degree of separation that we hope will allow the inspectorate to be more robust in its feedback and observations about the system?