Seòmar agus comataidhean

In the interests of full transparency, I think that we should put it on the record that Mr Mason got a lift back to Edinburgh with the convener.

As it is the season of good will, I start by paying tribute to the work that Liz Smith has done on the bill, which has been really important for the debate. The people we met on Monday who have been involved were pleased that we are having the debate and about what it means for the future.

When we met people at the Broomlee centre, they outlined some other funds that they see groups receiving—the Robertson Trust was mentioned to us specifically. Are there other examples of funding from the third sector or of philanthropic funding opportunities? What elements of delivery of the bill could that fund—be it the teaching experience or the capacity and capital spend that we might need?

Something that stuck with me following our visit to the Broomlee centre is that it has been 80 years since a significant piece of legislation has been passed in the UK to expand outdoor education—the Education Act 1944, which is often called the Butler act. That was the foundation for the building of that centre.

I have a question about the capacity that is currently in the sector for the increased demand. Some useful data was shown to us on peaks and troughs; obviously, those are very much related to school holidays. What work has been undertaken on the bill to envisage what that would look like—not necessarily just at centres, but, as you mentioned, at camping and hostel sites as well? To what extent could different models be used?

I have a question about current capacity. As an Edinburgh member, I see my schools benefiting from the centres that we have, and schools in Aberdeenshire and the Ayrshires also have that opportunity. Do you see the bill as a way of correcting the postcode lottery that has been created, with some councils continuing to value outdoor education while others have allowed it to disappear?

I do not think that we are all that far away from what we are trying to achieve. I should say that I had hoped to lodge amendments on the matter, but I had an issue in that respect.

As the Deputy First Minister has said, setting a target is one thing, but measuring an outcome is very different. As we look towards lodging amendments at stage 3, I wonder, given that all members are in the same space here, whether the Deputy First Minister would be open to working with us to achieve that.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s amendments 63 and 65. My proposed amendments 85 to 94 would simplify and strengthen the current mechanisms for assessing demand for Gaelic-medium education by compressing the current system of having an initial assessment and a subsequent full assessment into a single process, which I think would be useful, as it would make the process quicker and less stressful for parents who are making key decisions about their children’s future education. Specifically, my amendment 85 proposes compressing sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Education (Scotland) Act 2016, as prospectively amended, into a single section 9. The crucial provision, which requires education authorities to provide Gaelic-medium education when the threshold of five children is reached, unless it would be unreasonable to do so, is moved forward to emphasise its importance.

After 40 years of Gaelic-medium education, there are only eight all-Gaelic schools in Scotland, with four of those being situated in Glasgow. There is currently no strategy or process in place for the establishment of those schools, and it is often left to parents to lobby their local authorities. On occasion, that has meant that local parent groups have had to fund feasibility studies for schools. As we know, it has taken a minimum of 10 years from the initial requests from parents to open those Gaelic-medium schools, which means that many parents who are campaigning for schools often do not see the benefits of them for their children. Campaigners have told me that there are currently five areas in which parents are campaigning, so far unsuccessfully, for Gaelic-medium education in schools.

My amendments could help to simplify that process. I listened to what the cabinet secretary had to say with regard to drafting, so I am happy to work with her at stage 3 and will not move amendments 85 to 94.

Cabinet secretary, current history teachers who marked the exam said that they were “confused and demoralised” and that those who were in charge of assessments have “effectively destroyed the subject”, and your colleague Fergus Ewing has said that the process has been “fatally flawed”.

I note where we are today and what has been investigated. You have a power to regulate procedures in the SQA. You said that you are happy enough and that we need to move on, but do you not consider that the questions have not been answered, that a lot of people will not want to be markers any longer and that a lot of people will not have confidence in the next history exam? What is angering pupils and parents is the fact that people who are going to sit the next exam will not have confidence in it. Do we actually need a new, independent investigation to look at the issue, and not an internal process?

I take on board what you said about the Welsh being involved, but the report has not cleared things up. I am not sure whether you think that time will mean that things move on and people will just have to live with it, but does this not show that there is a problem at the heart of the SQA? Are you taking advice from your colleagues who are not happy with the process?

I am hearing mixed opinions about whether we are stuck in a vacuum until the legislation is sorted. The Government might decide that legislation to establish a national social work agency could be part of the Promise bill. However, I looked at the Government’s web page on that today, and there are just a couple of photos about what it will look like and what work will be done.

The national social work agency is what is meant to be driving change. It is meant to set standards and then monitor how councils take forward the work. Are you saying that we do not really need that agency and that that work has been happening, or has it not been happening?

What would the trigger be? If a teacher contacts you tomorrow to say—

I thank the witnesses for joining us this afternoon. Confidence and trust in the exam system really matters, and the internal investigation has not restored that trust—we all need to admit that. In fact, I think that it has undermined trust even more. We see it all online—that the SQA is marking its own homework and the investigation is a whitewash. How do you move on from that? I put that question to the cabinet secretary first.

You have answered a lot of the questions that I was going to ask about workforce planning and so on, but I want to return to some of the issues that Jackie Dunbar raised in her line of questioning. Ben, you touched on the principles of good transition. In your opinion, how much of the Promise—you might want to give a percentage—is now being delivered?

I ask that because, as Willie Rennie said in the previous evidence session, we met young people back in 2020 who thought that it was a really good piece of work. We are now halfway through the time and they are becoming cynical about what it means. I am concerned that lessons have not been learned. For example, we have heard from young people about the removal of compulsory supervision orders at 16 to manage casework, which is still happening today. There still seem to be bad decisions and a lack of advocacy in the system. In relation to the Promise and the transition, how much is, in reality, now being delivered on the ground?

Ben, as I mentioned you, I will bring you in first. I know that it is a difficult question, but it is an important one.