Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. To summarise, the SQA’s process review came to the conclusion that it had not done anything wrong and young people had underperformed. For the purposes of my line of questioning, let us accept that premise, even though we may not accept it outwith this line of questioning. To me, it felt like half a review. The SQA got halfway towards finding out what happened but, as soon as it realised that, in its view, it was not the SQA’s fault, it stopped.

When I asked Fiona Robertson about that, she appeared to be of the view that it was not the chief examiner’s role to find out what happened and why young people underperformed in those circumstances, or that it is not the SQA’s job to find out why there is a particular drop in a particular subject at a particular time. That has to be someone’s responsibility in the system, though. To be fair to the cabinet secretary, she said that it is ultimately her responsibility. In practice, though, the cabinet secretary cannot be the one who delves into individual issues with individual subjects every year to ensure that a crisis point is not reached.

I am interested in hearing your views on where in the system that responsibility should lie. Should it lie with the chief examiner or is there someone else in the system who should be responsible for investigating why there is underperformance, if we accept that that is what happened here? Personally I do not accept that but, for the purposes of this question, who should be responsible for finding out the reasons for sudden drops in performance in particular subjects at particular times?

Have you had any indication since the SQA’s review was published that it is genuinely interested in finding out what happened? If we accept the premise of the review, which was that the young people underperformed, have you picked up from SQA senior management that it wants to know the reason for that or are you under the same impression that—frankly—I am, which is that, as soon as it felt that it could take itself out of being responsible, its responsibility for the process also ended?

I was on our predecessor committee eight years ago, when we did a review of the SQA’s performance, and that specific point was brought up: that kind of information is not provided unless you are at a markers’ meeting; it is not provided to the workforce overall. There were clear conclusions, and recommendations were made, but those have not been implemented, and we are now at the point of having to abolish and replace that organisation. It had umpteen opportunities to address those issues. However, I am conscious that I am beginning to stray into other members’ lines of questioning, so I will finish there.

Sophie Kerrigan mentioned the importance of learning about and discussing social media in school. That reminded me that, nine years ago, the committee took evidence on that as part of a review of personal and social education, which was a long-running Youth Parliament campaign that we implemented.

A key part of that was the idea that PSE in schools should be co-designed by young people so that it was relevant to them. Social media was the specific reason for that. Feedback from teachers said that they often were not on the same platforms as young people, or that, if they were, the algorithms were showing them something totally different.

Eight years ago, Education Scotland decided that PSE would be co-designed by young people. At that time you were all at school: most of you are still at school now, or were there recently. Was that your experience? Did you have an opportunity to co-design PSE and to talk about topics like social media?

That is good to know. Thank you.

I will continue Keith Brown’s initial line of questioning. I think that I was the first MSYP to be on a local council education committee, but I did not have voting rights, despite having roughly the same mandate in terms of votes as the councillors did.

I am interested in what you said about education reform. I share a lot of your frustrations about the process, particularly the fact that the Government is, in essence, not taking forward Professor Hayward’s recommendations, which is a massive missed opportunity. Much of the reform cannot be put into law—a lot of it cannot be put in primary legislation, although some of it can be done by regulation—because a lot of it is a matter of policy choice.

However, one issue that has some relation to the Education (Scotland) Bill is, as has been touched on, how to engage with young people who are not already involved or are not naturally interested. I am talking about young people who do not become MSYPs—I think that I can say that as somebody who was one. I am interested in your thoughts on that kind of engagement. The bill sets out proposals to have a learner interest committee and to have someone representing the interests of young people on the board—I agree with Ellie Craig that that must be a young person, not an adult speaking on their behalf. However, that is a very small and, ultimately, self-selecting group.

We can take the example of higher history, on which we are about to take evidence. The SQA has no mechanism by which to contact every young person who sat the higher history exam last year. Particularly through the reform process, how can we create a system in which we get mass engagement with all young people who are affected by such decisions, not just a self-selecting group? We need that group, but those people are not necessarily always representative.

Were the other topics things that the SQA senior management had asked you to discuss with young people?

You make a good case for a level of local flexibility. Of course, we are then hit with newspaper headlines about postcode lotteries and how people can get something in one area but not in another. That tension needs to be managed. Fiona, are you looking to come in on that point, as well?

You have all shared with us loads of great examples of the work that you do, whether it is intensive residential support for young mums or even simple but powerful stuff like the example that Claire McGuigan gave about changing language. We hear quite a lot in Parliament about examples of good practice, but one of the barriers that keeps coming up is about sharing it and, when we find that something has succeeded, making sure that it is rolled out consistently.

I am interested in how best practice is shared and whether the children’s services planning partnerships have helped with that, either through sharing best practice within a local authority area or—in particular—nationally. At the national level we hear lots of great stuff all the time, but we go back to our regions and constituencies and find that the great stuff might be happening in some communities but not in others, and that some local authorities are aware of it but others are not. How is best practice being shared and have the CSPPs helped with that?

Linda, would you like to go first, particularly on that second part of the question on CSPPs and whether they help?

Good afternoon. I will start with a question about the public health levy. In 2024, the Scottish Government did some engagement exercises and consultation with stakeholders with a view to considering whether such a levy could be added to the non-domestic rates scheme. That was before the UK Government’s decision on employers’ national insurance contributions, which I presume has played a role in the Scottish Government’s decision not to go ahead with the levy this year. Will you clarify whether the Scottish Government believes that there is a potential role for a public health levy as part of the non-domestic rates system in future years?