Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, and it is to Mr Smeall. I was going to explore duplication, but Mr Dey has done that amply. In your answer to Mr Dey, I think that you talked about the Glasgow colleges group. Is there a distinction between the Glasgow colleges group and the Glasgow Colleges Regional Board? I was looking through Janie McCusker’s submission on behalf of all the Glasgow colleges, and there are mixed views on whether that additional layer is required or is duplication. Is there a difference between the Glasgow colleges group and the regional board? What are your thoughts on the mixed views on the regional board?

That is helpful.

I have a couple of other questions. First, do you anticipate that, if we were to look at the cross-party group this time next year, we would see more non-MSP members than Connect? You can address that along with my next question.

You mentioned that opportunities for families to engage might be lacking in the Parliament’s cross-party groups, and I note that you mentioned the cross-party group on children and young people. I looked at the minute of its most recent meeting, which was attended by YouthLink Scotland; the group looked at its pandemic impact study. At that meeting were Families Outside and Parenting Across Scotland. That is an example of parents’ groups being able to directly engage with a cross-party group, specifically on matters of Covid, which you have mentioned as being one of the subjects in which you are interested.

I did not see Connect listed in that minute. Perhaps I have got that wrong. Has Connect tried to join that cross-party group in order to put into play its experience and its network? That would avoid duplication and could enhance that cross-party group. Have you spoken to that cross-party group? It seems a really obvious vehicle for raising all the issues that you have listed in your application form.

When it comes to that area, there is genuinely a gap in the Parliament’s cross-party groups. There is a strong case to be made.

I felt a little guilty, convener, about the comments that I made to Michael Marra, but I was trying to make the point that we need to carefully scrutinise each and every proposal for a cross-party group that comes before us. Michael Marra did amply well in demonstrating that there is a need. Asking certain questions in a certain way does not mean that a member does not support the intention of a cross-party group.

Maybe it was a bit unfortunate that the witnesses came today to propose their cross-party groups. I reflect on the fact that the Parliament and previous incarnations of the committee have taken a permissive view to cross-party groups: “If you form them, we shall grant them, and they shall happen irrespective of whether there are enough MSPs to make them meaningful.” That is not a reflection on the two witnesses from whom we heard today, who, I am sure, will do a sterling job with those cross-party groups.

There is a gap because of Covid and because of the significant education reforms. The cross-party group will do a real service to the Parliament—I may even join it myself, convener. However, it is important that, whoever comes to the committee to propose a cross-party group, we scrutinise the proposal carefully.

I do not doubt the importance of the subject or the good will and public interest involved, but we are going to get to a stage at which there are more cross-party groups than there are back-bench MSPs in the Parliament. There is an onus on us to make sure that there is no duplication. I am therefore concerned.

I looked at Connect’s website, and my child’s parent council is listed there. I am not sure whether the website just lists all the parent councils in Scotland or whether individual parent councils have a voice. I am unsure what Connect’s involvement has been with the other cross-party group. From its website, it is clear that it is a worthwhile and important organisation—I cast no doubt on that. However—this is not directed at Mr Marra’s proposed cross-party group, convener—I use this public forum to signpost to other MSPs that perhaps we need to find out about demand before we bring forward for approval proposals for cross-party groups. That is not specific to your proposed cross-party group, Mr Marra; there is a real frustration among committee members. I will bring you back in to reflect on those points.

I cannot deny the significance and importance of making sure that parents, families and communities have a direct voice in this place. Clearly, Connect is a strong, valuable and worthwhile vehicle for making that happen, and I absolutely agree with you that that is the intention of the proposed cross-party group. However, as you can see, there are tensions about how cross-party groups operate more generally across the Parliament. Will you reflect on the idea of gauging demand and of maybe liaising more carefully with other cross-party groups before bringing a proposal for a cross-party group to the committee?

I feel as though I have been both good cop and bad cop in the one meeting. I acknowledge that Meghan Gallacher, who is listed as being on the proposed cross-party group, is also the co-convener of the cross-party group on children and young people. I am sure that that will lead to some strong partnership working, and there may be acknowledgement that there is a gap. However, it was not for me to say that; it was for me to ask the question and for Mr Marra to make the case that there is a gap.

We both sit on the Education, Children and Young People Committee. Given the significant changes that there will be to Scotland’s education system—whether in assessment, in the senior phase within schools or in the Scottish Qualifications Authority—and given the key role of parents and families, it is important that parents’ voices are heard. What priority would you give to those on-going changes in the work of the cross-party group, should it be approved?

Mr Marra, thank you for coming along to explain the purpose of the proposed cross-party group and to seek approval for it. I have some potential concerns. I emphasise the word “potential” but I want to scrutinise them.

I am always concerned when I see only one non-MSP member on a cross-party group. I get that Connect is an umbrella organisation that engages with others, but I am keen to see individual groups directly involved in cross-party groups rather than all being filtered through one body. I need to get to know Connect better, so I make no judgment on it. I am sure that it is a wonderful organisation, but will you tell me a little bit more about it and how it ensures that it reflects the views of a massive range of groups and families across Scotland?

It is simply a terminology question, so a yes or no answer would be great, if that is possible. I just want to understand the issue better. The syllabus and the content did not shrink, and they will not shrink in the coming year, either. It is what is externally assessed that will be narrowed, to allow more focus on teaching and learning. Is that a better way of putting it?

Earlier, we heard that the syllabus for students and the course requirements in terms of content did not shrink, but that the externally examined aspects of the curriculum narrowed. That clarity was helpful. We know that the situation will be the same for the exam results that will come out in August 2023. When does the SQA anticipate returning to the pre-pandemic breadth of content for external examination? It would be helpful to know that.

There is also the issue of consistency. Will the awards in August 2023 and August 2022 be comparable, by and large? Given that there are issues around comparability, it would be helpful to know that.

Due to time constraints, I will roll in a third aspect to my question—it would be really helpful if I could get answers on all three parts. Professor Louise Hayward is looking at what should be externally examined and at that balance more generally. Is it anticipated that the SQA will not return to the previous levels of external assessment because Professor Hayward might recommend something completely different? Why would we return to the old way of doing things when we are in a transition stage to a new way of doing things?

There are three aspects to that question, and I hope that you can pick up on all of them.

I will not come back in with a question, but I just wanted to say that I thought that coursework never left, because it was part of the syllabus. It could be internally assessed rather than returning to external examination. I will leave that thought there.

I have a question that I want to ask later, but I will ask part of it now. We are talking about “lost learning”—learning that has been lost because of the disruption of Covid and because of a slimmed-down syllabus or a slimmed-down external examination diet, which will be the case again next year.

I want to be clear about the language that we use. Are we talking about “lost learning” because young people have gaps in their learning because schools were not open, or are we talking about it because of a slimmed-down syllabus in the classroom? Those are two different things, and I would like to be clear about the language.

I do not think that Michael Marra got an answer to his question about where lost learning is mapped and about its knock-on effects. For example, are active discussions taking place with universities about science, which is heavily content based and involves building blocks of learning? If a bit of the syllabus is taken out, that has to be picked up at first-year undergraduate level. Where is that mapped? Where is it reported?