Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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 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.

I point out that, although health and safety is not devolved, building standards and building safety are. As much as I hope that the amendments are not moved at this stage, because there is still more work to do, I sympathise with their principle, particularly because of an incident a few years ago in the East Dunbartonshire Council area, when there were gas leaks in schools. It then emerged that the council could not locate the gas certificates for most of the primary schools in its estate.

There is a need for something more rigorous in the process to ensure that the safety of our school buildings is checked, although perhaps not through the mechanism that is proposed.

I apologise—I was not being clear. I was talking about amendments 317 and 350 in relation to the work with Education Scotland.

My concern about amendment 318 is similar to that of the cabinet secretary. I think that there is another conflict of interest, in that the effect of the amendment would be to move the inspectorate towards being a body involved in the delivery of the system. That would create a conflict of interest similar to what the bill is trying to resolve. I do not think those involved in co-ordinating the delivery of a service would be sufficiently independent to inspect how the service was being delivered.

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.

On that point, does Mr Simpson share my confusion at the minister’s line of argument that he cannot come to a position on these amendments until the review group has come to a position on them, when many of the amendments are aimed at implementing the recommendations that the review group itself made 15 months ago?

Does the minister agree that a consultation, engagement and listening exercise has been done before? The most substantive exercise was completed a decade ago in 2015. It is perplexing to argue that further consultation is required on an issue that is as specific as revaluation when everyone agrees that 1991 values are inappropriate and that revaluation is required. What are the minister’s expectations of the current consultation exercise versus the myriad of other consultation exercises that have all said the same thing, which is that we cannot use 34-year-old values for a modern council tax system?