Education, Children and Young People Committee 19 November 2025
That is the impression that I got from unions—that teachers really buy into these experiences—and putting that provision in the bill could jeopardise that.
There are also technical issues in relation to amendment 28. I mentioned that the SNCT is a non-statutory arrangement, so we should not try to make law that relies on definitions and processes that, rightly, continue to evolve through engagement and agreement. I am very conscious that there has been no formal consultation with the SNCT on the desirability or otherwise of that amendment. However, there will, of course, be an opportunity for the SNCT to consider the intent behind the amendment and to agree to make an appropriate change to the SNCT handbook, which is why the engagement is very important. I want to reassure Ms Duncan-Glancy that, should the bill be passed at stage 3, it is the Scottish Government’s intention to engage positively with the SNCT on any implications for teachers’ terms and conditions. Therefore, I hope that she will not press amendment 28. If she does, I could not support it, and I would urge members to vote against it.
On amendment 29, I have met with Scotland’s teaching unions on multiple occasions to discuss the bill, and I fully value their input and feedback on understanding the practicalities of how the bill might affect teachers. I am clear that, should the bill become law, the Government would absolutely look to continue to engage with the teaching unions to help to inform implementation. Given how critical the teaching workforce is to implementing the bill’s measures, it is only right and appropriate to acknowledge that in the bill itself, to make it clear that they will be consulted. I encourage the committee to support amendment 29.
I support amendment 30, which directly follows on from amendment 29 by defining what is meant by the term “recognised trade unions”. The definition is in line with existing legislation. However, I also acknowledge that not every teacher will necessarily be a member of a trade union, and that, in line with our fair work principles, we should ensure that their voices can also be heard, so I will further consider whether an amendment at stage 3 might be appropriate to make that clear.
On amendment 6, I want to be clear that, as with any new piece of legislation, it will be important to establish robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, should the bill become law. Therefore, I acknowledge that the intention of amendment 6 is valid and valuable. It is important that there are procedures in place to monitor the impact of legislation in order that local government, the Scottish Government and providers can adjust and evolve their approaches as necessary. However, under provisions of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, ministers have the power to require education authorities to provide information, and grant conditions enable that for grant-aided schools, too. These provisions are sufficient to establish appropriate monitoring and reporting, so I do not consider that such a detailed approach to monitoring and evaluation in the bill itself is necessary.
However, I have asked officials to consider for stage 3 how we might incorporate a general duty on reporting, so I hope that that reassures Pam Duncan-Glancy that we have a shared acceptance of, and commitment to, the importance of the matter and that she will not press amendment 6. If she does, I encourage members to vote against it.
Amendment 7 is a consequential amendment that makes provision for the parliamentary procedure that would apply to regulations that ministers would be empowered to make if amendment 6 were passed. Amendments 1 and 2 are technical amendments to enable amendment 7 to be made. I cannot support amendment 6, and so it follows that I do not support consequential amendments 7, 1 and 2.