���˿���

I thank all members for their contributions on this group of amendments. It is clear that we all agree on the importance of effective collaboration and working among national organisations across the education system. Indeed, that has been a central aspect of our education reform programme as it relates to our national education infrastructure.

My amendment 87 seeks to emphasise the importance of that while not being overly prescriptive, and allowing for future developments. I see Mr Briggs’s amendment 169 as unnecessary, given the existing obligations on all public bodies, to which I have alluded. However, as I have said, I will not stand in the way of the amendment if he chooses to move it, as I think that he will.

However, I am not able to agree with Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments. As I mentioned previously, amendments 317 and 350 relate inappropriately to an executive agency of Government and do not take account of the fact that that might change over time. I see amendment 318 as more problematic, as it would take the chief inspector into an area in which they would have no role—that is, the co-ordination of support for individuals. I think that Ross Greer made that point, too.

I ask members to support amendments 87 and 169, and I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move her amendments 317, 350 and 318.

Amendment 87 agreed to.

Amendments 165 to 167 and 315 to 318 not moved.

Section 34—Duty when exercising functions

I take the point that Sue Webber has made and the aspiration that she sets out, but my concern is that, as currently drafted, the amendment might limit the chief inspector’s functions. I am happy to have further discussions with Ms Webber ahead of stage 3, if that would be helpful.

I see merit in Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 321, 323 and 358, but my view is that the bill already contains provisions that will ensure that the chief inspector takes account of views and priorities that are vital to the education system—for example, through the views of the advisory council. I have specific concerns about the part of amendment 321 that would require the chief inspector to have regard to the views of the Scottish Parliament’s education committee. We discussed that issue extensively in the debate on group 11, when the views that Mr Mason and Mr Whitfield shared led to Mr Greer not moving amendment 60. Although it is reasonable to assume that the chief inspector would already have regard to the committee’s views, I believe that setting out a direct requirement in legislation would set an unhelpful precedent. We have all been concerned to ensure that the chief inspector is suitably independent—quite rightly so—and I believe that such a move risks undermining that independence.

I thank Ms Duncan-Glancy for explaining the purpose of her amendment, but, for the reasons that I will set out, I cannot support it. I understand that the amendment stems from concerns that the leadership that has presided over the SQA would transfer to qualifications Scotland. I assure the member and other members that I remain committed to ensuring that we have the right leadership for qualifications Scotland.

That process has already started with the appointment of Shirley Rogers as the chair of the SQA. She has provided invaluable leadership and has ensured that the SQA is delivering its functions and embracing reform. I hope that members will agree that it is critical that we have continuity of leadership.

Building on that, we have also approved leadership changes in the form of the appointment, in autumn 2024, of five new board members to the SQA board. I made those appointments to bring additional teaching and college experience to the board, alongside other skills that are invaluable in supporting the transition. Those members were recruited on the basis that they, too, would become members of qualifications Scotland.

Amidst such progress to refresh the leadership, Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment would risk bringing many practical challenges by requiring that board members who transfer to the new board would have their appointments terminated and would need to reapply. We would run the risk that some members might choose not to reapply, which would risk qualifications Scotland losing valuable skills and experience at a time when it needs them most. We also know that appointment rounds do not always yield the results that we hope for.

I am mindful, too, of the need, as we discussed previously, to ensure that the board is compliant with the minimum membership numbers and the criteria that the bill will establish, and of the need to ensure that it can function within the law.

I cannot support amendment 341. It might be helpful to clarify that the chief inspector will have to produce two annual reports. The first annual report will be on the chief inspector’s activities over the course of the preceding year, to which amendment 341 relates. The intention is to provide ministers, Parliament and the wider education system with an overview of the work that the chief inspector has undertaken.

The second annual report will be the report on the performance of Scottish education. It is in this report that the chief inspector will set out their views, based on the performance of individual establishments that have been inspected, on the overall performance of Scotland’s education system.

I believe that Mr Kerr’s amendment is unnecessary, as what he is looking for will already exist in the annual report on the performance of the education system. For that reason, I ask Mr Kerr not to press amendment 341.

I will come to talk about Daniel Johnson’s bill, because we need to be mindful that the bill before us is not focused on restraint, and I would be concerned about potential adverse consequences of legislating for that aspect outwith Mr Johnson’s bill.

Daniel Johnson’s Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill will give all ���˿��� an opportunity to consider in the round how restraint is reported and monitored—which I think is the point that Mr Briggs rightly makes—across a variety of settings before reaching an agreement on whether further legislative change is needed. I am carefully considering the provisions in Daniel Johnson’s bill. Mr Briggs mentioned my interaction with Beth Morrison, and I have engaged with a number of other parents in relation to concerns around restraint. I will continue to engage with Mr Johnson and with members on all sides of the chamber as his bill progresses. However, I ask members to resist supporting Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments in this group, if she moves them, in order to allow this important issue to be considered holistically in the context of Daniel Johnson’s bill. For those reasons, I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move her amendments.

On that point, I note that parliamentary recesses are not counted in the stipulated 40 days.

In my comments to Ms Duncan-Glancy, I have talked about some of the substantive changes that have happened at the SQA in recent months. I hope that the member will at least recognise that. I am not convinced of the need for all members of the current board to reapply six months after the organisation comes into being. That would create a real challenge for the stability of the organisation. It is stepping up and responding to the challenges that we all know exist in relation to our qualifications system. It has to get on with the job, and it has to be ready to do that. I am just not convinced of the proposal in amendment 351, and I am not sure that Ms Duncan-Glancy will convince me that a different timescale would help.

The Government has not begun any recruitment to qualifications Scotland, because that organisation does not exist yet. We have recruited to the SQA. I just wanted to put that on the record.

I very much recognise that there are calls for further legislation in this area. However, although the amendments are obviously very well-intentioned, I am not able to support them. We accept, of course, that there needs to be a robust system in place to monitor restraint where there is education provision in secure centres, but the amendments do not recognise the unique set-up of those centres or, in particular, the difficulties in distinguishing between care and education providers.

Notably, the Care Inspectorate has a vital role in undertaking the inspection of secure accommodation. I have, therefore, lodged my own amendment 88, which was debated in a previous group, to require the chief inspector to have regard to

“the need for relevant educational establishments to have adequate arrangements in place to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and young people”.

That flexible provision is intended to cover the use of restraint.

I am coming to that exact point now, Mr Kerr.

I am more open to discussing the intention behind Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments. Given the importance of inspection in the school system, in particular, it is an interesting proposition that ministers should set the frequency of the inspection of schools and other educational institutions, as amendment 309 suggests. That said, there could be potential downsides to it. There is a potential risk that, in focusing on the frequency and the number of inspections, we might lose sight of the trade-off that there might be with quality and appropriate focus. Hypothetically speaking, could the chief inspector, faced with a ministerial stipulation about how frequently schools should be inspected, seek to meet that requirement by carrying out a light-touch, simple inspection model, which might not always be appropriate?

I am also mindful of the fact that Professor Muir made no recommendation on the frequency of inspection in his report and that the associated consultation offered varying views from respondents.