Roz McCall
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“That restraint and seclusion have been used inconsistently and without parents being told is worrying, and that is exactly what the bill hopes to address. When parents find out what has happened to their child only because of bruises, distress and changes in behaviour, that is not just a failure to communicate; it is a failure of trust.”
“Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger have been mentioned by absolutely everyone who has contributed to the debate, which shows just how much work they have done to contact every single one of us, to lobby us and to highlight how important the legislation is.”
“Further discussion is not needed—decisive action is. The recommendations in the “Strengthening the Safety Net” report talk about having a national adoption practice model, improved training, mandatory data collection, enhanced crisis intervention and a more flexible adoption allowance.”
“Other areas of concern include the robust transfer of post-adoption support from a specialist adoption team to generic children and families services after three years. In theory, that might seem to be administratively tidy, but in practice it fails to reflect the complexity and longevity of adoptive family life.”
“I thank Fulton MacGregor for bringing the motion to the chamber and for continuing to highlight the importance of strengthening adoption support for families across Scotland.”
“My very first debate on this issue when I became an MSP was a members’ business debate on Scotland’s forgotten children, focusing on adoption in Scotland and the urgent need to improve post- adoption support.”
The complete record
Every one of 585 lines we hold for Roz McCall, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 12.
“I look forward to the assurances and information on that, and I accept that the minister is stepping in on this matter. I will also briefly address the child employment provisions. On the surface, they are not controversial, but there is an open question that I would like clarity on. Does the bill cover children who work on family farms or in small businesses? I understand that we have legislation on that, but, all over Scotland, that is not just a job but part of family life. That is how many people—especially young people—learn responsibility. If there is any unintended impact, we must understand it and address it. Finally, I come to the point on process that has already been highlighted very well by Jeremy Balfour and Douglas Ross.”
“We said that the outcome of that would be that there would be immense pressure. The briefing from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland for this LCM also raises concerns, specifically about the possibility of cross-border placements. I stress that the fact that the Government assures us that such placements are unlikely to happen does not mean that they will not happen. Residential care is not secure care. It does not offer the same physical security, therapeutic oversight or legal framework. It is not a like-for-like substitute, and we should not treat it as one. I have a couple of questions for the minister. What legal guarantees could be put in place to prevent residential facilities being utilised in a justice-related placement? How will cross-border oversight be managed if the facilities are based in England?”
“The Scottish Government’s memorandum states that “allowing for this option is in line with article 3 of the UNCRC, which requires that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in all actions involving them.” The proposal to allow residential accommodation might seem helpful in offering greater flexibility, especially where capacity is under pressure. Secure accommodation in Scotland is currently under immense pressure, but we must not lose sight of what secure care is and why it matters. Last year, in this Parliament, we passed the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Act 2024, which moved away from placing children in young offenders institutions and into an individual child- based system that increases the use of secure care, with all the safeguarding and specialist support that come with it.”
“I rise to speak on the LCM that we have been asked to approve this afternoon. It has already been highlighted that it covers child employment, secure care and residential care. I have concerns about it, which I will briefly outline to members. At face value, the proposal to allow residential accommodation as an alternative to secure care might seem uncontroversial. Indeed, the Scottish Government seems quite comfortable in its assertion that it is very unlikely that a child would be given a cross-border placement. Unfortunately, however, unlikely does not mean impossible.”
“I addressed in my statement the point about data on neurodivergent conditions assessment waiting times. We do not have a centralised national collection of data on that, but we are working with health boards and local authorities to identify which data is relevant and which data can be best deployed to support outcomes for people who use those services.”
“I am glad to hear that the Government accepts that people are waiting too long to get the support that they need. Although the minister highlighted that support is not based on having a diagnosis, that is not necessarily the case for too many children and young people with autism and other neurodivergent conditions. I also note the minister’s assertion that young people are not being moved off waiting lists to meet CAMHS targets. The minister can be as crystal clear as he likes, but we have a freedom of information response that shows that that statement is completely false. If the minister has that proof, will he commit to publishing the data that supports his statement regarding neurodivergent conditions and CAMHS waiting times? Tom Arthur: Data on CAMHS waiting times is transparently published by Public Health Scotland.”
“If not, what steps is it taking to facilitate that important information? Graeme Dey: I hope that the member recognises that that is not my particular area of responsibility, so I will ask the relevant minister to write back to her. I am quite pleased to hear that she is concerned about exclusions, because we regularly hear from the Conservative benches a demand for a greater number of exclusions. There seems to be a slight disconnect in the Conservatives’ positioning on that. However, she makes a fair point, and I will ask the minister to write to her.”
“The minister mentioned the Who Cares? Scotland report. I agree that its findings are deeply concerning, given that, although the Promise aimed to end the practice of excluding care- experienced children, those children are nearly six times more likely to be excluded than their peers. The use of extremely limited timetables as a method of avoiding formal exclusion is also unacceptable, especially as it begets non- attendance, increases stigma and enhances mental health issues. In its 2025 report, the Promise oversight board stated that “school exclusions, reduced timetables and non-attendance can be interlinked. Data sets must be connected to give a clearer picture of what young people need in order to thrive.” Is the Scottish Government collating that interlinked data? If so, when will it be published?”
“MSPs can vote tonight to abolish the Scottish Qualifications Authority; they can vote to establish qualifications Scotland—a new organisation that is designed with teachers, parents, carers and young people at its heart; and they can vote for legislation to drive the reform that is needed in Scotland’s schools. I hope that all parties take the opportunity to do so, and I commend the Education (Scotland) Bill to Parliament. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the Education (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill”
“I wish to highlight the contribution that Liz Smith made in ensuring that the chief inspector recognises the important role that outdoor education plays in our system. The bill focuses on our public bodies. It does not change how our schools are run, nor does it change how education is delivered, but it does improve the support that our public bodies can give our teachers, directly involving them in decision making, for example. It also ensures that young people’s voices are at the heart of the organisation and gives independence to the chief inspector to provide challenge and support. The Education (Scotland) Bill provides Scottish education with an enormous opportunity.”
“It was apparent then that there was a disconnect between some of the loudest voices that were advancing the case for radical reform and those at the chalk face, who were calling for pragmatism and asking for patience. Those discussions were pivotal in my decision to delay the introduction of the bill by a year to ensure that we really engaged with the needs of Scotland’s teachers. Building in that time to listen has changed the way that the new qualifications body will work, with the creation of the schools unit already under way, led by former headteacher Sarah Brown. It has also changed the way in which curriculum reform is being delivered, with classroom teachers leading the national reforms across every curriculum area. In my opening remarks, I mentioned several important amendments that I worked on with Opposition members.”
“[Applause.] I also thank Shirley Rogers, the chair of the SQA, for all the work that she has undertaken to change the SQA in advance of the legislation, and I pay tribute to our special adviser, Erin McKee, who has been at the forefront of negotiations with the Opposition parties. When I was first appointed Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills in March 2023, I was told of the radical appetite for reform and the need to work differently—and to get it done tomorrow. With cautiousness and trepidation, I returned to the Royal high school, 5 miles from where we are today, and met with my former colleagues. In the staffroom that I once knew well, I sat and listened to our teachers.”
“Had the SQA listened to the recommendations in the committee’s report at the time, we might not be here today. Similarly, Mr Rennie was right to talk about Tavish Scott’s impassioned interest in separating out the inspectorate function from Education Scotland, and he was consistent in that argument. If—when—the bill passes this evening, I am sure that he will be pleased. I want to put on the record my sincere thanks to the members of my bill team for their diligent work and the support that they have given me throughout the past few months. They are hiding at the back of the chamber, but I will embarrass them by naming them. I thank Clare Hicks, Lisa Bird, Sean Stronach, Jaxon Parish, Nico McKenzie-Juetten, Judith Brown, Laura Barrie, Findlay Glynn, Tracy Manning, Shirley Anderson, Maria Crespo, Jack Buckley and Mark Byrne.”
“Jenny Gilruth: I have to say that there is some incoherence on that point. I was told that I was not going fast enough on education reform, and I was criticised by the Conservatives and the Labour Party for delaying reform. I did delay reform—by a year—for good reason, which I will come to discuss. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. There has been extensive engagement— Pam Duncan-Glancy: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Jenny Gilruth: I say to Ms Duncan-Glancy that I would like to make some progress. Our qualifications system is the reason why we are here today, and getting the reform of our national qualifications body right matters. Ross Greer was quite right to remind the chamber of the recommendations from the Education and Skills Committee in the previous session of Parliament, of which we were both members.”
“Once again, I thank all members for their contributions to the debate. I am also very grateful for what has been, in the main, a constructive approach from all Opposition parties, with members having engaged with my office and officials over recent months. We have seen a slight deterioration in the past 24 hours— Miles Briggs: I have spoken to all Opposition parties about this. Would the cabinet secretary acknowledge that the bill has been rushed? We have had to sit two evenings in a row to rush the bill through before recess. In hindsight, would it not have been better to delay stage 3 until after the summer recess? She might then have attracted cross-party support for the major reform that she is putting forward, which, it is clear, not every party is willing to support.”
“That is not what this Parliament was set up to do, and the public will not thank us for it. They deserve better. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call the cabinet secretary, Jenny Gilruth, to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Government. 20:50 Jenny Gilruth: I want to start by paying tribute to Scotland’s young people, our teachers, parents and carers. This bill is for them. That is why we are legislating tonight. Jackie Dunbar rightly spoke about the strengths in Scotland’s education system. She said that we already have a great education system in Scotland. It is not perfect—I accept that—but we have a strong education system in Scotland, and I want to pay tribute, on the record, to those who work in our schools every single day to deliver that education to our young people.”
“The fact that the majority in the Parliament might disagree with the substantive points that are made in debates does not diminish those points or the need for them to be made. It is our moral duty to fully push the debate, and if members in the chamber think that Opposition voices should be silenced, curtailed or belittled, they will push this institution towards dictatorship and away from democracy. As I mentioned, the Scottish Conservatives will not support the half-hearted attempt at reform that the bill represents. As has been the case with so many bills brought forward by this SNP Government, we are debating a bill that is an acceptable move in the right direction, rather than making the necessary legislative changes to make tangible moves to improve outcomes for the people of Scotland.”
“The amendments that were accepted were the amendments— [Interruption.] I am sorry, but does the cabinet secretary want to intervene again? Jenny Gilruth: No. Roz McCall: Thank you very much. The disappointment that I want to highlight is down to some of the behaviour that was on display yesterday. Some of the amendments that were spoken to, and some of the contributions that were made, were met with what, in my opinion, were arrogance and contempt. I believe that that shows disrespect to the Parliament and does a disservice to the people who we represent. Members might have differing opinions, but every one of our contributions is equally valuable. It is our job to be a voice for the people who we represent.”
“I was incredibly disappointed that some of the amendments and the contributions, especially in yesterday’s proceedings— Jenny Gilruth: Will the member take an intervention? Roz McCall: I will. Jenny Gilruth: I am listening to Ms McCall express her disappointment, but I am also looking at the totality of amendments, both from her party and from Scottish Labour, that the Government supported. Does she not think it somewhat incoherent that, having worked with the Government on those amendments, both Labour and the Conservatives are now positioning themselves against the legislation? Roz McCall: I appreciate what the cabinet secretary is saying, but what I am seeing is—I will use a phrase that my colleagues have just mentioned—low-hanging fruit.”
“The truth is that it should have a complete overhaul—not just a cosmetic makeover and a name change. The proposed changes fall far short of what was needed to ensure that the organisation operates effectively and is properly accountable. At every stage of the bill process, amendments were lodged with the aim of ensuring that the bill would offer not only reform but much more. At stages 2 and 3, Conservative members tried to amend the bill so that the cultural change that the cabinet secretary admitted was essential would come to pass. It is therefore extremely disappointing that the opportunity to enhance the bill—and, ultimately, to enhance our education offering in Scotland—has not been taken.”
“The report recommended that accreditation be transferred to a new national education agency, which would also take on responsibility for the curriculum and the professional support roles that are currently held by Education Scotland. I totally agreed with the response that Miles Briggs gave to the intervention on his speech, because what we are looking at is simply an internal restructure. We were looking for radical cultural change—that is what we wanted to see from the bill—but, instead, the agency’s functions have not been separated in that way. Splitting the awarding and accreditation functions of the SQA is fundamental to creating a system that will work. As the scandal surrounding last year’s higher history exam showed, the SQA should not be marking its own homework.”
“However, here we are. Will the bill that we have just debated truly deliver a cultural change in both the Government and our education agencies? I think not. We could have been debating a bill that made a monumental change to our education system and truly embraced the concept of change that we all agreed was needed. However, unfortunately, much of its promise has been watered down and, in my opinion, it will result in little more than a rebranding of the already failing SQA. In 2022, Professor Muir’s report recommended separating the SQA’s accreditation and regulation functions from its role as an awarding body.”
“I might be the third person in line to do so, but I would like to extend my congratulations to Davy Russell and welcome him to the Parliament and the chamber. I also thank him for expressing the sentiments that he mentioned in his speech. I am three years into being an elected member, but I still feel a sense of excitement about the fact that I am here in this place. I turn to my speech. Presiding Officer, “reform is not in itself a panacea. Cultural change in both Government and our agencies will be essential if we are to build a new qualifications system that carries the credence that children, parents and the teaching profession will expect.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2024; c 24.] Those are not my words—I am quoting the cabinet secretary—but I cannot disagree at all with their content or the sentiment that they express.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms McCall. I will ensure that that is recorded.”
“It is part of the Scottish Parliament Official Report archive and has been sent for legal deposit. Published in Edinburgh by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, EH99 1SP All documents are available on the Scottish Parliament website at: www.parliament.scot Information on non-endorsed print suppliers is available here: www.parliament.scot/documents For information on the Scottish Parliament contact Public Information on: Telephone: 0131 348 5000 Textphone: 0800 092 7100 Email: sp.info@parliament.scot”
“Given that the cabinet secretary has committed to beginning that review before the end of this session of Parliament, I am happy to withdraw amendment 204 and not to press my other amendments in the group. Amendment 204, by agreement, withdrawn. The Presiding Officer: At this point, I am minded to suspend proceedings for five minutes, and I would be grateful if business managers would come and meet me at the front of the chamber. 21:55 Meeting suspended. 22:00 On resuming— The Presiding Officer: That concludes stage 3 proceedings on the Education (Scotland) Bill for today. Stage 3 proceedings will continue tomorrow with group 16. Decision Time 22:00 The Presiding Officer: As there are no decisions to be taken, I close the meeting. Meeting closed at 22:00. This is the final edition of the Official Report for this meeting.”
“Ross Greer: I thank the cabinet secretary and I absolutely agree that the review that she has committed to, which I welcome, should not be limited to the educational aspects of home schooling and that issues such as safeguarding should be considered. For the reasons that I outlined to Martin Whitfield, I am not at all convinced that all councils in Scotland are providing adequate support to families who have made that choice. I point to the bill that the new Labour Government has introduced in England, which places a stronger duty on education authorities to provide that support. I think that that is a route that we should consider here, in Scotland, and that a review would absolutely be the right first course of action.”
“Additionally, during stage 2, I undertook that I would explore those matters further and that I would engage with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, in particular, being mindful of its statutory responsibilities. I wrote to COSLA on 13 June to propose that the matter be discussed at the next meeting of the education and childcare assurance board. I will also ensure that GTC Scotland is included, so that issues arising from its current review of the fitness to teach assessment can also be considered. I know that Mr Rennie, as well as a number of other members, are interested in that and view it as being particularly important. The Presiding Officer: I call Ross Greer to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 204.”
“Concerns have been shared by the office of the chief social work adviser, which has questioned the potential interface with the role of chief social work officers, who already hold statutory responsibilities in our local authorities, as well as with the role of the Care Inspectorate, particularly for educational establishments that are also care establishments. In summary, I stress again that, although I do not see the bill as being the vehicle to achieve what is proposed, we need to collectively consider the important issues that have been raised by Mr Kerr and Mr Briggs. I therefore give an undertaking that, outwith the confines of the bill, I am committed to doing exactly that with both members.”
“Those reports would need to be passed on to the police or social work services, which, ultimately would slow things down and potentially increase the risk for children. As was noted at stage 2, the matters that we are considering around safeguarding, concerns of various kinds, complaints and related areas are complex, and there are a range of interlocking statutory roles. Any potential change should be the subject of extensive consultation, given the potential for significant unforeseen implications.”
“As I stated at stage 2, I have every sympathy with his intentions. We already have agencies with clear responsibilities for the enforcement of child protection measures, particularly Police Scotland and local authority children and families social work services. Giving the chief inspector an enforcement function would risk complicating that landscape and could have unintended consequences. For example, child protection guidance is clear that any concerns about a child’s safety or wellbeing should be reported to the police or social work services, who have powers to make interventions as needed. If the chief inspector were also to have a role, there would be a risk of reports potentially going to them initially instead.”
“Those exist most notably in universities, where well-established and robust whistleblower mechanisms are already available to ITE students on the same basis as they are available to all other students and staff. The scope of the amendments would also risk cutting across the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman’s statutory remit, which, in broad terms, relates to maladministration and service failure. Resource would be a relevant factor, and we have discussed that in relation to a number of amendments. I take the member’s point about culture, which we have discussed at length, and I am sympathetic to the other points that he has raised, but I think that there are technical challenges with the amendment as it is drafted. Let me move to Mr Briggs’s amendment 210, on child protection and safeguarding.”
“Later, I will talk about a number of the ways in which I think that their points can be addressed, but I am unable to support the amendments. On Mr Kerr’s amendments 35 and 53, as I previously set out at the Education, Children and Young People Committee during stage 2, I am specifically concerned that the employment-related provisions, which include a whistleblower function for the chief inspector, would not be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, which would risk the bill being unable to become law. Further, as is detailed in a letter to me from Universities Scotland, Mr Kerr’s amendments would cut across existing mechanisms in the higher education sector.”
“I urge members to reject amendment 206, but I reiterate that there is no intention that the inspectorate will inspect childminding settings. Roz McCall will also be aware of the shared inspection framework that has been developed with both organisations in relation to some of the recommendations in Professor Muir’s report. As she will be aware, the non-legislative work to streamline the inspection of early learning and childcare, school-age childcare and childminding services between HMIE and the Care Inspectorate is progressing. Although we will continue to listen carefully to feedback from the sector, I continue to believe that that is the right approach. I now turn to Stephen Kerr’s amendments on whistleblowing and Miles Briggs’s amendments on child protection. I take both of those issues extremely seriously.”
“Although I understand the sentiment on streamlining the inspection of childminding services, I do not think that it would be appropriate at this point to take her proposal forward in legislation. Nevertheless, I want to give her some reassurance. In January this year, interim chief inspector Janie McManus set out that there were no plans for HM inspectors to inspect childminders, despite their ability to do so. As part of developing the new shared inspection framework for early learning and childcare with the Care Inspectorate, both inspectorates have agreed that the Care Inspectorate will continue to inspect childminders, and I understand that childminding stakeholders are reassured by that public statement from HMIE, which is welcome.”
“We should be careful not to limit the scope of any future work related to educational aspects of home education, and having the full involvement of stakeholders, which I spoke about, will be important in that regard. I propose, therefore, that Ross Greer withdraw his amendments in this group on the basis of my commitment that we will commence a review of the current arrangements before the end of the current session of Parliament, so that we can be assured that the arrangements for home education provide sufficient support. I will ask HMIE and relevant partners to be part of that work if that would appease Mr Greer. I turn next to Roz McCall’s amendment 206.”
“I think that there is an opportunity to address that—if not in this bill, then in the next session of Parliament. Jenny Gilruth: I will speak first to amendments 204, 205, 221 and 257, in the name of Ross Greer, which relate to the inspection of home education. Members will recall that, earlier this year, we published updated home education guidance for local authorities, parents and carers, updating and setting out their roles and responsibilities in relation to home education. Before that updated guidance was published, it underwent substantive consultation with the broader home education sector, and I am mindful of that in responding to Ross Greer’s points. That being said, given that we have only just published the new guidance, I can see an argument for continuing to monitor and evaluate its implementation.”
“Miles Briggs: I totally agree, which was why I wanted to bring the amendment back at stage 3. I had hoped for more engagement from the Government on a workable amendment of its own, but, as that did not happen, I have brought my amendment back. I hope that, if it is not agreed to, we will have a commitment for guidance on the matter. The work that many campaigners across the parties are taking forward in this area is important. The issue may not sit specifically in this bill, but I hope that it will be considered in the next session of Parliament. Stephen Kerr’s amendments may also be considered if there is an opportunity to address whistleblowing more widely. Given that we have implemented a whistleblowing policy for the national health service, I am not quite sure why we would not have one for education and children’s services.”
“I look forward to hearing what the cabinet secretary has to say before I decide whether to move my amendment, as I would like to know whether the Government will take the matter forward in improved guidance. That is important for the petitioners, who are still pushing for the wider change that they hope to see. Pam Duncan-Glancy: Scottish Labour members support Miles Briggs’s amendment 210. Does he agree that safeguarding is a crucial function of the inspector and that putting that in the text of the bill while also providing that details can be sorted out in regulation would achieve a good balance? It would provide for setting out the detail and engaging the people who are required to be consulted on that, but it would also put in legislation that safeguarding is an important function of our inspectorate in Scotland.”
“I have brought back my amendment 200 from stage 2. It relates to petition PE1979, which is currently going through Parliament, and it would allow Scottish ministers to set out further detail by regulations, including how inspections should address safeguarding, how complaints could be made to the chief inspector and what actions the inspector would be able to take in response. It contains an important change, which I hope that the cabinet secretary has considered beyond stage 2, because I believe that we need a system across education and children’s services that looks at complaints that are made in relation to child protection and safeguarding functions.”
“21:45 Miles Briggs: I am not sure whether it is good or bad that it takes Parliament to sit until a quarter to 10 just for Ross Greer and Stephen Kerr to find some agreement and common ground, but that may be an achievement for this evening. I offer my support for Roz McCall’s amendment 206. I express concern about Ross Greer’s amendment 205, however, because I think that there has been no consultation on his proposals— a point that Jackie Dunbar rightly tried to make. In addition, I am not sure how the chief inspector would take forward an inspection regime with the home education community, as that has not been consulted on. I welcome what Ross Greer is trying to achieve through amendment 205 and the potential for future consideration in that respect, but Scottish Conservatives do not support his amendments as a group.”
“Education is not a private matter; it is a public service. The rights and wellbeing of learners, the trust of families and the integrity of national policy are all bound up with how we handle internal dissent. We must build a culture that says that telling the truth matters, that standing up for children matters and that calling out failure is a form of care. I genuinely believe that the cabinet secretary understands—I certainly hope that she does— what my amendments are intended to do. There is a cultural problem in the education sector. I urge members to support my amendments, not simply as policy, but as a statement of our values: that truth matters, that courage is to be honoured and that Scottish education must be accountable from the inside out.”
“The very existence of whistleblowing protection acts as a preventative force against abuse of power. Thirdly, such a framework improves staff retention. Talented professionals who are committed to doing the right thing will remain in the sector if they believe that ethical conduct is supported, not punished. It creates a culture where good people want to stay. Fourthly, such a framework supports organisational learning. Whistleblowing is often the first signal that something in the system is going wrong. If that signal is silenced, the institution continues to drift. If it is heard and acted upon, the institution can change before failure becomes inevitable. Early warning leads to early action. Most importantly, such a framework upholds the principle that public institutions must serve the public good.”
“If we are serious about creating a world- class education system—one that is grounded in safety, ethics and trust—we must begin by protecting those who protect the truth. That is what my amendments would do. Let me also reflect on the wider benefits that a well-functioning whistleblowing framework can bring. First, the existence of such a framework improves learner safety. When staff feel safe to raise safeguarding concerns, the entire system becomes more responsive. Children are better protected, risks are identified earlier and lessons are learned more quickly. Secondly, such a framework strengthens leadership. When leaders know that staff have recourse to independent oversight, they are more likely to lead ethically, transparently and responsibly.”
“That role has shown that it is entirely feasible to have a small, independent office that ensures that complaints are handled fairly, safely and outside the management chain. There is no good reason why the education workforce should be afforded any less protection than NHS staff. Let us be absolutely clear: whistleblowing saves systems from failure. It is a means of protecting the public interest and of ensuring that the best interests of pupils, parents and the wider public are safeguarded at all times. That is particularly vital in education, because schools are closed environments, power is hierarchical and cultures can become toxic. When issues arise, whether through mismanagement, safeguarding failures, curriculum malpractice or the bullying of staff or pupils, too often the instinct is to deny, deflect or retaliate.”
“The Scottish education workforce is majority female, and it is female teachers who are disproportionately subjected to disrespect, aggression and violence in the classroom, often without institutional protection or recourse. I am sure that we all know from our engagement with teachers that, when incidents have occurred in certain schools in some parts of Scotland, teachers have been actively discouraged from reporting. They have been asked to consider their professional reputation, the reputation of the school and so forth. That is not acceptable. My amendments in this group—this relates to Martin Whitfield’s point—are modelled in part on the independent national whistleblowing officer that was created for the NHS in Scotland.”
“Such transparency is essential for accountability, and it would give Parliament and the public the means to scrutinise whether the system is working. A functioning whistleblowing framework would do four vital things: it would protect learners by ensuring that safeguarding concerns were acted upon; it would support ethical leadership; it would retain principled professionals; and it would promote early institutional learning before problems escalated into scandal. Such a framework would also address an uncomfortable but urgent fact—the fact that many of those who are most at risk when whistleblowing protections are absent are women.”
“It would be wholly distinct from any employer’s internal grievance procedures. We are not talking about those. That separation is vital because, in too many cases, the employer can be the source of the problem. The process would affirm the right of teachers, support staff, administrators and even—in some contexts— pupils to raise their voices when something is going wrong as they see it. That would say to our education workforce that their integrity is valued, that their concerns will be heard, and that their careers will not be sacrificed for doing the right thing. Amendment 53 would strengthen the framework by requiring the chief inspector to publish an annual report to Parliament detailing the number and type of concerns raised, investigations conducted and recommendations made.”
“However, in these stage 3 amendment proceedings, I am trying to raise the point that whistleblowing needs to be taken far more seriously. I have lodged amendments that I believe would meet an immediate need, which is to tackle a certain culture that we would, in all honesty and candour, accept exists in Scottish education. We need teachers and school leaders to feel completely free to voice their concerns as they see them. At the minute, I do not think that such a culture exists. I speak to enough school leaders, headteachers and teachers—as I am sure that Martin Whitfield does—to know that that is a genuine concern. Amendment 35 would establish a formal process that would be accessible, widely publicised and governed by best practice in public interest disclosure.”
“Martin Whitfield: Stephen Kerr will know that I fully support the principles of whistleblowing and have done so for a long time. However, rather than reiterate what I discussed with him at stage 2, I simply note that I still have concerns about his amendments, because education is not like the NHS. It is a different environment, and a different group makes up the jigsaw of it. As much as I agree that a whistleblowing entity is necessary, I say to Stephen Kerr, with the greatest respect, that I am not sure that the process for which his amendments provide is it. Stephen Kerr: I appreciate Martin Whitfield’s intervention and I understand his concerns. We have discussed the issue not only formally but informally.”