³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

The Muir review repeatedly stressed the importance of reconnecting national bodies with the lived experience of teachers. Professor Muir wrote that it is essential that those who hold leadership positions in national education bodies have experience of the sectors that they oversee and can demonstrate that credibility and understanding when engaging with practitioners. The definition is not outlined in amendment 302, so it is open to amendment at stage 3. However, amendment 302 looks towards leadership skills, which my colleague Stephen Kerr and, I think, the wider committee would be supportive of potentially outlining in further detail at stage 3.

Amendments 302 and 303 concern the appointment of the chief inspector of education. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the appointment process for that crucial post is robust, transparent and principled. The bill, as introduced, creates a position of chief inspector, but it does so with minimal definition regarding who should be eligible to hold that office and how long they should serve in that role. In a role of such significance to the quality and integrity of Scotland’s education system, that omission is neither trivial nor technical.

Amendment 302 proposes that, to be eligible for appointment as chief inspector, an individual must be a qualified teacher and have held a senior leadership role within a school or other educational establishment. That is not an exclusion clause; rather, it is a statement of principle that those who lead the scrutiny of education in Scotland should have substantial and relevant experience of the sector that they will be inspecting.

I have been listening to the member and my only concern about amendment 6 is that it would politicise qualifications Scotland, in that he would be placing on it a duty to take into account the Government of the day’s priorities in the development of courses. Does he recognise that, and has he thought about what that might mean for an organisation that should be focused on what the economy needs, not necessarily on what the priorities of politicians in Government are?

The cabinet secretary will know how keen a consensus builder my colleague Stephen Kerr is, so with that in mind, I will not press amendment 302 or move amendment 303, and we can all look forward to working together on what will, I hope, be workable amendments for stage 3.

Amendment 302, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 76, 303 and 142 to 144 not moved.

I would be happy to do that. I hoped that this group would have amendments from other members, because there are other things that would be of benefit to the bill. There is probably support for this within the governing party as well. I hope that there will be an opportunity to widen the offering in the bill at stage 3. Considering the number of pupils with additional support needs in our schools, it is important that the new organisations embed that support.

I am grateful to the member for lodging her amendments. It is important that the issue is included in the bill.

Each institution that I have met has a very different set of supports available. For example, at the University of Edinburgh, which has a large international student intake, some of its duty of care is related to language barriers. Other institutions have been providing useful support in relation to mental health, which the member has mentioned. They may also provide access to food banks or more holistic support while someone is going through their studies. Is that what the member envisages being created through the bill, or is she just pointing towards what should be a wider package of duty of care? I would hope that the Government would be quite open to such a package being part of the bill and to working on a set of principles around what that could look like.

To get back to the heart of the issue, my concern is that the Government has not said what model it wants and a review is not acceptable. To go back to Liz Smith’s point and to Stephen Kerr’s helpful pointing out of other models in different parts of the UK, we need to see that decision as part of the bill, not a review.

Given the extensive conversation that we have had this morning, would the cabinet secretary and other members be mindful of not moving the amendments to this part of the bill, so that we can go away and look at it again, perhaps including with Ken Muir? He would be a useful person to look at the founding principles that he wanted to see in the bill; at the best model that can be brought at stage 3; and at whether there is consensus on that. If not, as Ross Greer has outlined, the majority in Parliament will take the least bad option, and that will not help to deliver the foundations of what we want these two institutions to do. Is the cabinet secretary mindful of that, so that we can move this meeting forward a bit?

I accept that, cabinet secretary, because I think that we need to move this forward. All members who have been part of this committee—not just those of us who have joined quite recently, but those who have served in the Parliament for decades—have wanted to see this reform achieved. I am looking at Willie Rennie when I say that. [Laughter.] As I have said, I accept what the cabinet secretary has said.

I know that staff are asking for that transparency and are not receiving it. Has there been a financial ask from the University of Edinburgh? If there is only £5 million left in the pot, will that be the total that is available for other institutions? The University of Edinburgh is not the only institution expressing financial concerns, as you have mentioned.

Yes.