Miles Briggs
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“Angela Constance: It was always going to be the case that the old hospital would continue to be used while the new hospital was being built, which means that important investment is required in that regard.”
“The Sunday Mail reported on 26 April that ministers had failed to sign off on the business case for the new Monklands hospital prior to the election, so it is important that the cabinet secretary publishes the information that Scottish ministers knew during that period and that she explains why there was no statement to the Parliament bef…”
“I am happy to furnish Mr Briggs with further information about the process. When we deal with any full business case, it is important that that is thoroughly examined and scrutinised, out of respect for those who have compiled it.”
“The Nuclear Industry Association estimates that Scotland’s civil nuclear industry could have supported more than 10,000 jobs if the sector had experienced the same growth as has been evident south of the border, in England. The Scottish Government must reflect on the opportunities that the country will miss out on in years to come.”
“Whatever views members may hold on the nuclear power sector, there should be broad agreement that Torness has been one of the most significant economic and industrial assets that our country has ever had.”
“With the ongoing instability in the middle east and the consequent volatility of global gas prices, households and businesses are vulnerable to price shocks. New nuclear energy would put energy back in our own hands, protect us from fossil fuel price volatility and deliver much-needed energy security.”
The complete record
Every one of 469 lines we hold for Miles Briggs, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 10.
“I think that there is a cross-party consensus that we need a new approach, but the Scottish Government’s Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill will not deliver the better system or the vision for apprenticeships that we all want. As Murdo Fraser stated, the SNP’s response to this mess is simply to mess around with quangos and transfer responsibility for the national apprenticeship programme from Skills Development Scotland to the Scottish Funding Council. I do not believe that that is the right move at present. I agree with the concerns that are being expressed by CBI Scotland and Scottish Chambers of Commerce, namely that the bill presents the potential to dismantle what already works and leaves employers in the dark in relation to the future of apprenticeship schemes and our wider workforce system.”
“In June, the principals of Ayrshire College and Glasgow Kelvin College gave evidence to the Education, Children and Young People Committee. Angela Cox from Ayrshire College noted that the college was unable to award a place to 764 students who had passed interviews, and Joanna Campbell from Glasgow Kelvin College noted that the college is accepting only one out of every three applicants. We know that the current system is not delivering to meet demand. The Scottish Government funded 25,507 modern apprenticeship places in 2024-25, but demand exceeded those funded places for learning.”
“Not a week goes by without me having a meeting with an organisation or speaking to a business in my Lothian region in which the issue of the skills shortages in our economy is raised. I am sure that the same will be true for every MSP. How we redirect the focus of our education system to deliver on the challenge that we face in our college sector will require not only a national effort but difficult decisions to realign future demand in key industries and sectors and meet the demographic changes that our country faces. As many briefings for the debate state, there is significant unmet demand for places, apprenticeships and courses. That should focus all our minds on how we build a system that can deliver for people.”
“I move amendment S6M-19123.1, to leave out from “banned” to end and insert: “subject to a clear national ban in classrooms, recognising the strong evidence of how distracting they are and how disruptive they can be to pupils’ ability to learn and teachers’ ability to teach; acknowledges that while headteachers and local authorities have some powers to restrict the use of mobile phones, existing Scottish guidance is weak, and calls, therefore, on the Scottish Government to update its guidance with clear national direction on what is expected.” 15:09”
“I hope, too, that Parliament will continue to listen to some of the commonsense views of teachers, parents and our young people that we have brought to Parliament. I welcome the progress that has been made in delivering some of the changes that we want to see, such as the review of additional support for learning, which we secured in May. Ultimately, we want Parliament to send out the message that we want there to be a national ban on mobile phone use in classrooms, and that we want all councils to work to progress that. That is what my amendment seeks to achieve.”
“In addition, two secondary schools—Portobello high and Queensferry high—have piloted the issuing of special sealed wallets, which, once sealed, require a magnetic pad to unlock them. That allows pupils to keep their phones in the classroom. That is an expensive solution to the problem, and I know from speaking to staff that the additional staff support that is needed to seal and unseal the wallets is problematic. I am open to different approaches being taken, and I think that headteachers should be at the heart of that work. All schools already try to manage the situation, and their headteachers have policies on the issue. The Scottish Conservatives have led the debate on our toxic school environments. We have called for a reset on that, and I hope that ministers have started to listen.”
“Action must be taken to ensure that poor behaviour in the classroom has consequences, and we must look towards not allowing pupils to have phones out in classrooms. I therefore welcome the fact that there now seems to be a clear consensus across Parliament on our desire to send out the clear message that we want mobile phone use in classrooms to be banned and that we want all 32 councils to move towards implementing such a ban. As has been stated, here in the capital, City of Edinburgh Council is leading by example. I welcome the fact that Conservative councillors have secured a ban on mobile phones in Edinburgh’s primary schools, which will be introduced in November.”
“Many schools can be and are great learning environments for our young people and great environments for teachers to deliver the lessons that we all want to be delivered. However, we also need to make sure that standards are set. Last week, I was delighted to visit Leith academy, which I know that the cabinet secretary also visited last week. I welcome what the school is doing to support its pupils, some of whom I welcomed to Parliament yesterday. I have been really impressed by the work that the school is doing on pupils’ expectations with regard to mobile phone use in classrooms. Most schools can manage expectations in that way. However, in too many cases, our school environments have become toxic, with students and teachers experiencing stress, bullying and other negative behaviours, and mobile phone use is often at the heart of that.”
“I thank the Labour Party for holding a debate on mobile phone use in schools. The Scottish Conservatives held a similar debate in January this year, and I am pleased that, since then, other parties—and, indeed, the cabinet secretary herself—have moved towards supporting our call for a national ban on the use of mobile phones in classrooms. We are clear that there is growing concern about behaviours in our classrooms, and mobile phones are often at the heart of those behaviours. As Pam Duncan-Glancy said, our classrooms must be safe spaces for pupils to learn in and teachers and classroom assistants to teach in, but, for so many of our young people, they are not. Concentration is a key thing that we must ensure is restored.”
“I welcome the minister to his role, as I did on Tuesday. I also thank Graeme Dey for his constructive work on the bill both cross party and with the Education, Children and Young People Committee, and I wish him well in his new role. I also thank the organisations that have provided useful briefings ahead of today’s debate. On Monday, I visited Leith academy. I know that the minister, as the constituency member, is a regular visitor, too. I enjoyed a tour of the school and a very constructive conversation with the headteacher, Mike Irving. I believe that the cabinet secretary is also visiting the school next week—”
“However, as I set out in my statement, I am more than happy not only to engage with some of those organisations alongside Ms Smith but to continue discussions on those points. On engagement with COSLA and teachers’ unions, I believe that I said that I would meet them jointly with Liz Smith. COSLA has real concerns about affordability, equity of provision and workforce capacity. That was also discussed at length in a meeting that I had with trade union representatives. I assure Mr Briggs that the Government is very alive to those issues and is willing to work with Liz Smith to find a solution in a way that will bring costs down.”
“I genuinely welcome what I think is a change of attitude from ministers, and I genuinely hope that they will work to help the member to deliver the will of Parliament, to deliver the bill and to deliver other members’ bills that are going through the Parliament. What steps will the Scottish Government take with local authorities and representatives of teachers to look at how the bill can be delivered, especially given that some councils, including my own—the City of Edinburgh Council—are already delivering the policy? The bill presents a huge opportunity to councils. Natalie Don-Innes: I thank Miles Briggs for those points. I remind members that it is Liz Smith’s bill, and it is up to Liz Smith to deal with some of the concerns and challenges that are ahead.”
“My point remains that at no point did any member lodge an amendment that would have allowed the flexibility of all those options being implemented.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. During the passage of the bill, I lodged amendments 22 and 26 and a package of amendments that would have allowed local authorities to set a flat rate for the visitor levy. I believe that the minister is misinforming the Parliament. The Presiding Officer: That is a debating point, Mr Briggs. Ivan McKee: On the contrary, Presiding Officer. Miles Briggs has been very clear. He lodged amendments that would have changed the basis of charge from a percentage to a flat rate. They would not have allowed a percentage rate or, indeed, a tiered flat rate, which is what the industry is largely calling for now. We are talking about allowing all those options to be available to provide flexibility.”
“On a personal note, I hope that this will, indeed, be his last junior ministerial apprenticeship. The Conservatives wish him well in his role in the Government. 14:24”
“I know that members across the chamber have always recognised him as a good friend, and he is an MSP who is both respected and rated by all in the chamber. I am sure that Ben, as a proud George Heriot’s boy, will be at the forefront of making the case in the Scottish Government for continued support for our independent schools in Edinburgh. Ben Macpherson is a keen supporter of apprentices. Members might not know this, but he served his own apprenticeship in his youth, when he was involved in the Edinburgh Labour Party and did work experience with the local MSP for Edinburgh Northern and Leith, Malcolm Chisholm. Like all good apprentices, he decided to do what many do and went on to take his job in 2016. As the First Minister has stated, Ben Macpherson returns to the Government with significant ministerial experience.”
“I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives about the appointment of Ben Macpherson as Minister for Higher and Further Education. For many people in Edinburgh, Ben first came to our attention in the summer of 2004, when he walked from Edinburgh to London to raise awareness of the annual international day of peace. After the events of the past week, perhaps the Government could, indeed, do with the qualities of spreading peace and love, which I know Mr Macpherson will bring to the role. Those who follow politics will know that two notable ministers decided to leave the Scottish Government under Humza Yousaf in March 2023—Ben Macpherson and the First Minister—so it is not surprising that both have returned to the Government. In 2016, I was elected alongside Ben Macpherson to represent constituents in Edinburgh.”
“To give the member an alternative view, the NASUWT said that the guidance “has the potential to support positive improvement in managing pupil behaviour in schools.” Mike Corbett of the NASUWT said: “We have been actively engaged in working with the government to produce this guidance and its publication is an important step forward in our continued focus on driving down levels of disruption”. As a Government, we have to work in partnership with our teaching trade unions. I accept that there is a range of views on the issue, but the teaching unions have broadly welcomed the guidance. To go to the point that Mike Corbett has consistently raised with me, it is now imperative that the guidance informs better practice in our schools. I will continue to work with COSLA to that end.”
“The cabinet secretary has stated that the findings come from the profession. I agree, and one of the most concerning aspects of the findings is that—this is what teachers say—the current national guidance “disempowers teachers”. Does the cabinet secretary accept that and does she accept that there is an association between falling standards, poor attendance and poor behaviour? Does she think that the plans that the Scottish Government has set out will turn the situation around? Jenny Gilruth: I accept that, in education, there will always be a range of different views on what the Government undertakes.”
“Will he ask the health and social care partnership to reverse that decision and will he investigate why Scottish Government funding for our hospice sector has not been delivered?”
“In July, the Scottish Government announced £5 million to help with the recruitment and retention of skilled staff and the provision of sustainable services in the hospice sector. Scottish ministers have still not released that funding, but the Edinburgh health and social care partnership has decided to reverse a 3 per cent inflationary uplift in funding for hospices here in the capital. St Columba’s Hospice Care and Marie Curie Edinburgh are warning that essential palliative end-of-life services are now at serious risk due to that funding decision. Does the First Minister agree that it is totally unacceptable for hospices to be given funding with one hand and then to see it being taken away with the other?”
“To ask the Scottish Government at what stage the current funding application is for the Edinburgh biomes project at the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. (S6O-04904)”
“Last night, I attended the annual general meeting of the Glenrothes and Levenmouth District Scouts, where people were talking about the involvement of parents and carers in the wider community. This cannot be just about schools— we have to have a broader integration of support in relation to the expectations for our children and young people. I hope that the member will engage with me on the next steps in relation to the action plan. Indeed, if he has any further concrete suggestions that he would like to bring to the table, I will be happy to hear from him—although I put on the record that the examples that are provided in the consequences guidance have come from the teaching profession itself.”
“I hope that the member will take up my offer to visit St Brendan’s to talk to the teachers in that school, who, at the end of June, were very clear with me about the difference that having high expectations and a really consistent approach to behaviour in their school makes to how they can drive learning and teaching. Fundamentally, we need calm and consistent learning environments in our classrooms. Good behaviour allows teachers to teach. The national action plan is part of the solution, but I accept the member’s challenge that it is not the whole solution. We have to look more broadly than at schools alone. For example, one point that I made in my statement was about the need for partners to work together.”
“We were not able to accommodate that request in the final week of that term, due to the stage 3 proceedings of the Education (Scotland) Bill, so I am pleased to have done so today. The guidance that was published at the end of last term was new, as far as the provisions on consequences were concerned. It was, of course, welcomed by the NASUWT. I put on record again that all our teaching unions have been involved in the development of the advice—it has not come from the Government or ministers—and it is important that we respect their views on what works. It is hugely important to remember that those people are the experts in our schools, and we place our trust in them every day. Miles Briggs mentioned speaking to teachers over the summer recess. I did so, too, and I engage with the teaching profession regularly.”
“Teachers who are punched or who have chairs thrown at them do not need to be told to undertake a risk assessment. The Scottish Government’s incoherent guidance and reluctance to even mention effective consequences, let alone apply them, is letting down hard-working school staff and the majority of pupils who simply want to learn without disruption. Is the cabinet secretary asking pupils, teachers, parents and carers to wait another two years before the Government will outline how it will get a grip of violence in our schools? Jenny Gilruth: This year, there have been a number of new developments in relation to the national action plan, which I have set out to the Parliament today. The Opposition asked that we do that at the end of the previous term.”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. Before the schools returned, I spoke to several teachers who told me that, for the first time in their careers, they did not want to go back to school, due to the levels of poor discipline and violence that they have personally experienced in their schools. Today’s statement is very much a repeat of what the Scottish Government has already outlined. Unbelievably, it concerns a national action plan that includes no new actions— just more talking and a marketing campaign. I will outline my concerns to the cabinet secretary. I believe that the Government has failed to take forward real changes. There are no clear outcomes or consequences in the guidance on how teachers can respond to any violence that they might experience.”
“I have spoken about the individual experiences of people, and I directly responded to Alex Cole-Hamilton and recognised the issues that he raised. The point about transitions is absolutely important, and I look forward to further engagement with members on that. A joined-up approach is key to that. That is what the national specification seeks to achieve. We are taking forward the work of the review via the task force to ensure that we have a more joined-up, connected, integrated, holistic and person-centred approach that is absolutely consistent with the GIRFEC principles. That is what we are working to achieve.”
“In all my time in the Parliament, I have never heard a statement from a Government minister so disconnected from the reality that our constituents, especially young people, face. The minister should reflect on that and should potentially withdraw his statement, because it does not mention young people transitioning into adult services. How many young people are not starting treatment prior to transitioning to adult services? He has not mentioned that. How many families have been forced to seek diagnosis and treatment in the private sector, as Alex Cole-Hamilton said, because of failures of the minister’s Government? Tom Arthur: I reject the accusation that there is a disconnect, because I have been very clear that waits are too long.”
“On funding more broadly, the Government provided additionality to local authorities such as Edinburgh through the budget negotiation process. That was a key ask. There was £29 million for additional support needs, yet Miles Briggs’s party voted against that.”
“Jenny Gilruth: Mr Briggs is absolutely right to say that parents should not be left in the dark in that regard, particularly at this point in the academic year. I gave an undertaking to Mr Macpherson that I would ask officials to engage directly with the City of Edinburgh Council to that end. At the current time, as I set out previously, the legal obligation rests with local authorities. Miles Briggs asked about national guidance, but, because of their statutory responsibilities, guidance is a matter for local authorities. However, I am more than happy to speak to officials about whether there is an opportunity for us to consider producing national guidance to supplement that and, to Miles Briggs’s specific point, to press forward with engagement with the City of Edinburgh Council and the challenges in that regard.”
“I associate myself with the comments of Ben Macpherson. The way in which the council has handled the issue has been totally unacceptable. Parents and families are rightly angry that they have been left in the dark. We are now heading into the summer holidays, and children with severe medical complex needs, disabilities or life-limiting conditions should have the right to access holiday hub provision. There are often few opportunities for them to participate otherwise. What national guidance is the Government developing with councils on this issue? I did not hear that in the cabinet secretary’s answer. Does she recognise that the City of Edinburgh Council is finding it difficult as the lowest-funded council in Scotland?”
“The SQA needed an overhaul, not a cosmetic makeover, and the bill’s proposed changes fall way short of what is required to ensure that the organisation can operate effectively and that it is properly accountable. I believe that we could have built cross-party consensus on the bill if the minister had given us more time, and if the Parliament had had more time.”
“Scottish Conservatives were clear on our red lines over what we wanted to see in the bill, especially in relation to a new independent school inspector who would report directly to the Parliament. That has not been achieved. I regret that the bill has not been the opportunity that many of us had hoped for. I approached the bill in the hope that we could genuinely work to restore confidence in our qualifications authority and the inspectorate. It was hoped that the bill would deliver a meaningful reform for Scotland’s education system, which is urgently needed. Instead, it is little more than a rebrand of the SQA. Splitting the awarding and accreditation functions of the SQA is fundamental to creating a system that works, as the higher history scandal showed, with the SQA not being allowed to continue to mark its own homework.”
“However, the failure to take forward as part of the bill important reforms such as the independence of the chief inspector and child protection reforms will not provide the reset or the independence from ministers that the organisations need. I fear that the Government has ended up in a weaker place and that the bill has ended up as a weaker response, which is not what we need to truly set up qualifications Scotland as a new organisation with the strong foundations that it needed. The question that we are all asking is: what measures in the bill will restore trust? Will the new organisation have a new culture? The jury is still very much out on whether that will be the case.”
“Either ministers should have introduced the bill earlier or we should have delayed stage 3 until after the summer recess, so that important discussions—really important discussions—to develop a cross-party consensus could have taken place and the bill could, potentially, have received the confidence of all parties in the chamber, as happened last week in respect of the Deputy First Minister’s work on the Scottish Languages Bill. Scottish Conservatives have, however, engaged positively and lodged a positive and significant set of amendments to try to shape a stronger bill that would deliver the outcomes that we all want. I note Ross Greer’s comments in the chamber yesterday in relation to the difficulty of legislating for culture change. I agree.”
“It is clear that SNP ministers’ policies and half-baked reforms are not delivering for our young people. The stage 3 process has felt more like the Scottish Government trying not to take forward reform rather than providing a bill that could deliver the full recommendations of the reports of the cross- party committee and Ken Muir. In addition, the pace at which the bill has moved through the Parliament, landing in the last week of the session, is problematic.”
“The changes that the bill was meant to take forward to respond to a range of reports and reviews, including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s review of the curriculum for excellence and Professor Ken Muir’s report “Putting Learners at the Centre: Towards a Future Vision for Scottish Education”, have not been achieved. I joined the Education, Children and Young People Committee last October, just in time for the signing off of its stage 1 report on the bill. I am sorry to say that it feels as though the bill has been rushed through the Parliament in the last week of term and that it does not reflect what the cross-party report envisaged. As my friend and colleague Liz Smith has stated, the bill is now the sixth attempt by the SNP Government to reform education in Scotland.”
“I thank the Parliament’s legislation team and, following these late sittings, the wider parliamentary staff, as well as Government officials and colleagues across parties for the constructive engagement that we have had on many elements of the bill. I also make special mention of our researchers, from all parties, because they have put in a power of work in attempting to improve the bill. During stage 3 amendments yesterday, Pam Duncan-Glancy stated that the bill was a “job half done”. I agree. After all, this is the main education bill that has been introduced by the Government during this session of the Parliament. We should not forget why we are here today. The 2020 exam scandal brought into sharp focus the failings of the SQA and the Scottish National Party ministers at that time.”
“We would expect the chief inspector to work in line with those well-established practices and with existing guidance and frameworks. As I pointed out when discussing a previous group, I have taken steps to initiate a discussion with COSLA, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, the GTCS and other partners on related matters through the forum of the education and childcare assurance board. However, I am happy to put on the record for Mr Whitfield that I will commit the Government to writing to the chief inspector on a regular basis in order to draw their attention to all the guidance that has been published, which they should have regard to in fulfilling that duty. On that basis, I respectfully ask Mr Whitfield not to move his amendment. 17:00”
“It would also risk blurring the lines between inspection and the provision of support, which the removal of the inspection function from Education Scotland seeks to emphasise. I therefore urge Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move the amendment. With regard to Mr Whitfield’s amendment 218, I have every sympathy with his intention of strengthening arrangements for safeguarding and child protection wherever possible. However, I fear that the amendment will not do that. The national guidance for child protection in Scotland sets out the responsibilities of everyone who works with children, young people and their families, including in educational establishments. As a fellow former teacher, Mr Whitfield is well versed in the principles behind getting it right for every child, which provides a consistent framework and shared language.”
“staff” is considered appropriately, the amendment could be read as meaning that the chief inspector should not report frankly on a school’s challenges, notwithstanding any impact on learners. We should not risk those kinds of unintended consequences and I therefore ask Ms Duncan- Glancy not to move the amendment. If she moves it, I ask members not to support it. Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 217 would require the chief inspector to challenge bureaucracy as they exercise their functions, which might have some value. However, the amendment would also require the chief inspector, in sweeping terms, “to offer practical assistance to schools and local authorities.” That would be an additional role for the chief inspector, with unknown scope and resource implications.”
“The point that I am making today with regard to amendment 320 is about providing consistency across the bill. I am also happy to support Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 214 and 215, which would require the chief inspector to “have regard to” the experiences of teachers and staff, subject to expanding that provision via my amendment 215A in order to align it with Mr Briggs’s amendment 76 and to ensure that amendment 215 also covers those working with college students with support needs. I am grateful to Ms Duncan-Glancy for indicating her support for my amendment 215A. I have some concerns about Ms Duncan- Glancy’s amendment 216. Although it is, of course, important that “the morale and wellbeing of ...”
“Pam Duncan-Glancy: Amendment 320, in the name of the cabinet secretary, says that the list of things that the chief inspector should “have regard to” should include “those with additional support needs”. My amendment 213 says that it should include those young people, too, but that they also should have regard to “inclusive communication”. Although my amendment goes further, does the cabinet secretary not agree that, at the very least, those amendments complement each other? Jenny Gilruth: The issue that I have in relation to the amendment as drafted, particularly in relation to the term “inclusive communication”, is the way in which that is interpreted. We want consistency across the bill—I spoke to a similar amendment in a different group on that exact point yesterday.”
“I also welcome Ms Duncan-Glancy working with me on her amendments 212 and 219, whereby the chief inspector must have regard to the strategic priorities for education, which are set out in the national improvement framework, when exercising their functions. I move to Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 213, and amendment 220, which supports it. I have some concerns about the reference to “inclusive communication”, as I believe that including that wording would not be helpful in this context. However, I am supportive of the intention behind those amendments. On that basis, I ask members to support my amendment 320 instead, which will require the chief inspector to have regard to the needs and interests of persons with educational support needs when exercising their functions.”
“The amendments would turn broad aspirations—collaboration, inclusion, professional voice and practical help, young people’s voice, additional support for learning—into clear statutory duties, so that the inspector would take those things into consideration when they were carrying out their role. By doing so, they would ensure that inspection is more relevant, humane and useful to the people who rely on it. I move amendment 211, and invite members to support it and my other amendments in the group. Jenny Gilruth: I am pleased to be able to support Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 211, alongside my amendment 319, which makes it clear that the chief inspector must work with others “in every case in which” they consider it “appropriate to do so”.”
“That particular language was chosen because it is the exact recommendation of the 2015 report that unnecessary bureaucracy should be challenged and that there should be practical assistance wherever possible. Those things are crucial for overstretched teachers and school staff. That is why I think that the chief inspector should look to include those things in the work that they will be doing. Scottish Labour is also happy to support amendments 319 and 320, in the name of the cabinet secretary, which will complement other amendments in my name to ensure that the chief inspector acts with regard to the needs of those with additional needs.”
“We also know that the levels of resource, input and support have not necessarily kept pace with the numbers of young people who need support. That has affected the morale and wellbeing of teachers and staff, so it is incredibly important that that is taken into consideration when schools are inspected. Amendment 217 speaks to a concern that was raised consistently with the committee during stage 1. However, the concern goes as far back as 2015, when there was a report on the impact of additional bureaucracy and workload for teachers on morale and on the time that staff have to educate and support young people. Amendment 217 talks to the burden of paperwork and bureaucracy. It would direct the chief inspector to “challenge unnecessary bureaucracy and offer practical assistance”.”
“Those staff understand the daily barriers and input, and they can point inspectors to solutions that might already be being tested on the ground. It is not just about addressing concerns; it is about helping to find solutions. Amendment 216 would instruct the chief inspector to take account of “the morale and wellbeing of teachers and staff.” That speaks to some of the experiences that I highlighted a moment ago. We know that morale among the teaching workforce and staff in schools is at a difficult level just now. They experience incredibly high workloads—they are having to do more for young people than they have needed to do in the past, and the support needs that young people have now might be different from those that young people had in the past.”
“Again, all our inboxes contain correspondence on the experiences of teachers and support staff. Poor behaviour and violence are on the rise as a consequence of some school environments, so it is important that the inspectorate considers those issues and their impact on staff. Support staff are particularly important in that regard. They are often a forgotten group among staff who work in schools, but we know from various surveys that have been carried out by the NASUWT and by the GMB—I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am a member of the GMB— that support staff experience significant concerning behaviour in schools, so amendment 215 is really important. Those voices are essential.”