Chamber and committees

I hope that you are able to hear me. I apologise, but, because of the size of the event, the ventilation is on strong, so if the background noise is—

Stephen, I recall that, quite a few years ago now, I met your predecessor to discuss the scope of a potential inquiry into ASN services. My office has built up quite a lot of data on that over the years, with various freedom of information requests, written questions and so on, and I would be more than happy to pass that to you.

My other question concerns a different area. In paragraph 9 of your written submission to the committee, you make a point about measuring against the wider objectives of curriculum for excellence, the lack of data and the lack of systems for measuring against those wider objectives, rather than just considering attainment in assessed subjects. If you could expand on that, I am keen to know what areas of data you think are missing in those wider—[Inaudible.]—health and wellbeing, and other areas, too. In what areas is there a significant lack of data that inhibits your ability to conduct your work?

I have a final question on that theme. You mentioned the similarities between comments that you have made and what is in the OECD report. The OECD report offers another level of detail, and it is specifically critical of the value of the data produced by the Scottish national standardised assessments. I would be interested in your view on that. Do the SNSAs produce data that is useful to you for your objectives at the national level? An area of interest for our predecessor committee was trying to get a handle on the value of SNSAs as individual formative data for teachers interacting with individual pupils versus their value as a national or even a local authority level dataset. Do you find the dataset at either a regional or a national level to be useful? Are there better ways to collect such data?

I want to pick up on Oliver Mundell’s line of questioning about circumstances that might affect the status of a waiver. During the bill process, we amended the provisions to give the Scottish ministers the power to remove an organisation from the contributors list, most obviously if the organisation does not make the contribution that is due. What would happen in the event that an applicant had already signed a waiver in respect of an organisation that was subsequently removed from the list because it had not made a fair and meaningful contribution? Would there be an opportunity to annul waivers in those circumstances, or would they still stand because they had been signed before the decision was made to remove the organisation from the list?

I presume that, if an organisation had been removed from the list because it had not contributed, the payment that was made to the survivor would come from Scottish Government funds.

On a slightly separate but related note, you will recall that I lodged an amendment to the bill at stage 3 to require the Government to report on the operation of the waiver after the first 18 months of the functioning of the scheme. What arrangements will be in place from December to ensure that that review is taking place from day 1 and that no important information is missed? If the review finds deficiencies in relation to the waiver, will it be possible to address those retrospectively? If, in 18 months to two years from now, the Parliament agreed that there was a need to amend the scheme in relation to the waiver, could that amendment be applied retrospectively to those waivers that were signed during the initial period of the scheme’s operation?

Thank you. That is entirely reasonable. It is no secret that I was sceptical about the waiver provision in the bill the first time round, but I am content with the regulations that are in front of us today.

Cabinet secretary, I would like to return to your conversation with Kaukab Stewart about the national qualifications group. Since the 2021 alternative certification model experience, have you spoken to Cameron Garrett, the member of the Scottish Youth Parliament, who was quite critical of his experience on the group, or to Bruce Adamson, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner, who was scathing about the claims of co-production by young people?

How did that come about? I struggle to understand it. My interpretation of what happened is that it is not the case that EQIAs took place but were unsatisfactory; they regularly simply did not take place at all. For a simple statutory duty, that stuns me. I accept that that happened long before you came into your current role, but what is your understanding about how it came about? Had it simply always been a deficiency at the SQA since the public sector equality duty was introduced or did it gradually fade away as the members of staff who were responsible for it moved on to other posts or jobs? How could it possibly come about?

Thank you. I look forward to that report.