Chamber and committees

It has been clear for years that the SQA is not fit for purpose. After repeated mistakes, trust between teaching practitioners and the SQA is at an all-time low. Whether it be the higher history exam controversy or the injustice of the 2020 exam results, members recognise that changes are needed.

With the bill, the Scottish Government had the opportunity to turn the page and build a new body that works in partnership to deliver for learners and teachers. Unfortunately, it does not achieve that and falls short of what is necessary. In his evidence to the education committee, Professor Kenneth Muir said:

“We need a system that builds greater trust and ... increases empowerment”.—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 18 September 2024; c 3.]

Rebuilding trust is a fundamental part of why the bill is necessary. I will discuss whether it falls short in rebuilding trust and increasing accountability, specifically regarding qualifications Scotland.

I would like to note, as other members have, the proposed accreditation power for qualifications Scotland. In his report on replacing the SQA, Professor Muir said that he was encouraged by the ministers to be bold and to leave no options off the table. However, the Scottish Government—after previously accepting the recommendation on splitting responsibilities—is no longer interested in being bold. Now, qualifications Scotland will retain both awarding and accrediting powers.

Recently, the issue with the higher history paper was compounded by the perception of the SQA marking its own work. That perception, regardless of any new name, will remain for qualifications Scotland if it continues to be both an awarding and accrediting body, and that will not improve confidence.

The Education, Children and Young People Committee was told of the perception of decisions being made for teaching professionals rather than being made by them. If qualifications Scotland is to avoid the issue that has been faced by the SQA, it must be truly representative of, and engage with, educators. Although teachers will be included on the board, the extent of their representation, other than in terms of numbers, is not clear, and the lack of trade union membership is not acceptable.

A lack of clarity regarding representation is seen in other areas. In the interest committees, there is nothing to account for the wide range of experiences in learning and teaching. The large presence of qualifications Scotland staff on the interest committees contradicts their purpose entirely. The committees’ function, other than to advise qualifications Scotland, is also not clear. If the committees are to be a “meaningful mechanism”, as the policy memorandum states, they cannot just be talking shops.

In the provision regarding the strategic advisory council, there is, again, no specification on its membership or on how the council will interact with the interest committees, which, following recent controversies, should be key. We must see further detail on how all those bodies will ensure representation and responsibility; otherwise, the issues that plagued the SQA will be repeated.

I will finish by discussing equalities. Of the parts of qualifications Scotland that I have mentioned, all must endeavour to include the voices of ethnic minorities and anyone who experiences prejudice in education. Scotland is committed to building an anti-racist education system. Those principles should be baked into the foundations of qualifications Scotland. I understand that the education committee has asked the Scottish Government to set out how it will improve data collection processes for protected groups. I join the committee in requesting that. Any new body must have the best information possible to understand how its decisions are affecting learners, especially vulnerable people.

The SQA’s replacement must be accountable and representative and must engage with teachers, learners and parents. This reform will affect the prospects of future generations, and we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes that were made with the SQA, so the bill must deliver.

It has been clear for years that the SQA is not fit for purpose. After repeated mistakes, trust between teaching practitioners and the SQA is at an all-time low. Whether it be the higher history exam controversy or the injustice of the 2020 exam results, members recognise that changes are needed.

With the bill, the Scottish Government had the opportunity to turn the page and build a new body that works in partnership to deliver for learners and teachers. Unfortunately, it does not achieve that and falls short of what is necessary. In his evidence to the education committee, Professor Kenneth Muir said:

“We need a system that builds greater trust and ... increases empowerment”.—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 18 September 2024; c 3.]

Rebuilding trust is a fundamental part of why the bill is necessary. I will discuss whether it falls short in rebuilding trust and increasing accountability, specifically regarding qualifications Scotland.

I would like to note, as other members have, the proposed accreditation power for qualifications Scotland. In his report on replacing the SQA, Professor Muir said that he was encouraged by the ministers to be bold and to leave no options off the table. However, the Scottish Government—after previously accepting the recommendation on splitting responsibilities—is no longer interested in being bold. Now, qualifications Scotland will retain both awarding and accrediting powers.

Recently, the issue with the higher history paper was compounded by the perception of the SQA marking its own work. That perception, regardless of any new name, will remain for qualifications Scotland if it continues to be both an awarding and an accrediting body, and that will not improve confidence.

The Education, Children and Young People Committee was told of the perception of decisions being made for teaching professionals rather than being made by them. If qualifications Scotland is to avoid the issue that has been faced by the SQA, it must be truly representative of, and engage with, educators. Although teachers will be included on the board, the extent of their representation, other than in terms of numbers, is not clear, and the lack of trade union membership is not acceptable.

A lack of clarity regarding representation is seen in other areas. In the interest committees, there is nothing to account for the wide range of experiences in learning and teaching. The large presence of qualifications Scotland staff on the interest committees contradicts their purpose entirely. The committees’ function, other than to advise qualifications Scotland, is also not clear. If the committees are to be a “meaningful mechanism”, as the policy memorandum states, they cannot just be talking shops.

In the provision regarding the strategic advisory council, there is, again, no specification on its membership or on how the council will interact with the interest committees, which, following recent controversies, should be key. We must see further detail on how all those bodies will ensure representation and responsibility; otherwise, the issues that plagued the SQA will be repeated.

I will finish by discussing equalities. Of the parts of qualifications Scotland that I have mentioned, all must endeavour to include the voices of ethnic minorities and anyone who experiences prejudice in education. Scotland is committed to building an anti-racist education system. Those principles should be baked into the foundations of qualifications Scotland. I understand that the education committee has asked the Scottish Government to set out how it will improve data collection processes for protected groups. I join the committee in requesting that. Any new body must have the best information possible to understand how its decisions are affecting learners, especially vulnerable people.

The SQA’s replacement must be accountable and representative and must engage with teachers, learners and parents. This reform will affect the prospects of future generations, and we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes that were made with the SQA, so the bill must deliver.

An investigation into Edinburgh maternity units found that

“Mothers and newborn babies came to harm”

from

“a ‘toxic’ culture”,

fuelled by

“staffing shortages”.

That comes almost a year after the British Medical Association Scotland warned that national health service staffing levels were becoming “dangerously low”.

We are now seeing the consequences, with mothers and newborns needlessly being put at risk by the Scottish National Party’s mismanagement of our NHS. Will the First Minister listen to those concerns, stop pretending that nothing is wrong and step up to protect patients and staff?

I am sorry—I do not know whether I missed this. Did you say that there was supposed to be a report out in August? Can we ask the Scottish Government what happened to that report?

Worker co-operative and employee-owned businesses have been shown to be more productive and resilient than those that operate under traditional business models. However, the report on inclusive and democratic business models finds that they are poorly integrated into Scotland’s wider economic strategy. Does the minister agree that co-operatives and employee-owned businesses should be treated as key to our economy? Will he consider directing national bodies to take further action to support their growth, as recommended in the report?

I am pleased to close in this debate on behalf of Scottish Labour and join members in marking human rights day 2024.

As my colleague Paul O’Kane mentioned, the Labour Party has a history of protecting human rights. It was the transformative post-war Labour Government that helped to establish our system of human rights and build the Council of Europe. As Alex Cole-Hamilton said, the events of recent days remind us that we should not take those rights for granted. I also echo the cabinet secretary’s remark that human rights are a force for good and the key to global peace.

However, members have shared their disappointment that the Scottish Government has broken its promise to introduce a human rights bill in the current parliamentary session. The theme of this year’s human rights day is “Our rights, our future, right now”, but the Scottish Government seems to be using the theme “Our rights, our future, not now”.

Members have praised human rights defenders, but organisations are protesting outside Parliament today after another broken SNP promise. Maggie Chapman mentioned the protest and the disappointment felt by the organisations and individuals who are pushing for the law. She also mentioned their loss of trust in the Scottish Government.

Tess White mentioned the open letter that was signed by more than 100 organisations, which called the Scottish Government’s decision to kick the human rights bill into the long grass a “dismissal” of the human rights issues that Scottish people face. An open letter from Just Citizens states that it is tired of being used as only a “box-ticking exercise”. Another organisation has stopped engaging with the Scottish Government altogether due to broken promises. We must note that incorporation into law is not a cure for all the issues that we face.

SNP First Ministers have declared human rights to be a priority and a “great success” of devolution, but evidence that was presented by the Scottish Human Rights Commission says otherwise. Members such as Tess White, Alex Cole-Hamilton and Rhoda Grant have mentioned the report on human rights in the Highlands and Islands, which found that Scotland is failing to meet its core minimum obligation on food and housing.

The SHRC’s review of conditions in prison and forensic mental health settings also found that 83 per cent of recommendations by human rights bodies made during the past 10 years had yet to be implemented. With our prison death numbers being some of the highest in Europe, that is not good enough. Regardless of the human rights bill being delayed, the Scottish Government needs to deliver on existing rights.

I am pleased to join members in reaffirming our commitment to human rights. I understand that the process of incorporating human rights into Scots law has been complicated by the judgment of the Supreme Court—as Karen Adam and Keith Brown mentioned—but the Scottish Government is still able to meet its current obligations. The Supreme Court judgment does not prevent the Scottish Government from tackling the housing emergency, delivering a humane prison system or ensuring that no child goes hungry.

I hope that the Scottish Government will recognise the issues that have been raised in the debate and mark human rights day through action to protect the existing rights of Scots.

To ask the Scottish Government how it is working to ensure that pupils have access to practical science activities as part of the curriculum. (S6O-04087)

Science technicians are a key part of science departments in schools, supporting teachers with their work and practical lessons. However, the Royal Society of Chemistry’s science teaching survey in 2024 noted that 39 per cent of respondents from mainstream and specialist schools stated that they are understaffed for science technicians. Can the minister advise how the Scottish Government is working to address the shortage of science technicians?

I join members in congratulating Emma Harper, who is a great champion of the Scots language, on securing this members’ business debate, and in welcoming the continued work of the Open University and Education Scotland in teaching the Scots language.

For too long, children were shamed for speaking Scots. A 1946 report on primary education said that it was

“not the language of ‘educated’ people”.

We must recognise how much things have changed for the better in recent years. The Open University programme, which helps to embed Scots in schools, demonstrates that. For pupils, the effects of having their teachers communicate on their level can only be positive.

I also welcome the work of the Open University in developing Scots education for refugees and migrants. The “New Scots Refugee Integration Strategy” notes how difficult it can be for people to integrate without language skills, but Scots is not included in traditional English lessons, despite its being used in daily life.

I look forward to seeing the Open University’s research, and to seeing how we can support learning for new Scots. I also note the Open University’s previous success in Scots education. Its first course in Scots language and culture opened in 2019, and it has since taught 15,000 students. It is also important to note that the course is attended by more people from outside Scotland than from inside Scotland. That is a great demonstration of the value of the Scots language and of how it enables learning between cultures and attracts interest outwith Scotland.

I am pleased that Scots remains a living language and am pleased by its revival in recent years. I see that revival in my position as the shadow culture spokesperson for Labour.

The MacMillan Skills Hub in Muirhouse, in north Edinburgh, will fully reopen in January. The project, which was completed with support from the Scottish Government and others, will include a 96-seat theatre, a social enterprise cafe, artist studios and a council library. It is a great example of local culture benefiting all. Can the cabinet secretary advise whether the Scottish Government would consider working with the Brunton Theatre Trust in a similar effort to replace the Brunton theatre in Musselburgh, which was recently forced to close?