Chamber and committees

The second of the three new petitions that we are considering this morning is PE2014, on reverting to the appeals system used in 2022 for Scottish Qualifications Authority exams. The petition, which was lodged by Elliott Hepburn on behalf of Moffat academy students, calls on the Scottish Government to implement a revised SQA appeals process that takes into account evidence of pupils’ academic performance throughout the year, particularly prelim results.

The SPICe briefing states that the Scottish Government intends to replace the SQA and that it is expected that a bill will be introduced later this year for that purpose. The briefing outlines the appeals system used in 2022 and notes that the SQA described the 2022 appeals process as “an emergency response” to the Covid-19 disruption.

The SQA conducted a review of the certification and appeals processes, which included a consultation with learners, teachers, parents and others. The review found several issues, including increased workload for teachers and perceptions of unfairness in the process. All MSPs have probably received representations in relation to that.

Views on the approach for the 2023 appeals were mixed. The SQA appeals process for 2023 will involve a marking review by a senior marker that will focus on the correctness and consistency of the initial marking, and it will no longer consider alternative assessment evidence. The process is free, and individuals can appeal directly to the SQA.

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills has responded to the petition. She has stated that the SQA is responsible for its operational decisions, including its approach to the appeals process for 2023. Her response highlights the examination exceptional circumstances consideration service, which supports pupils who are unable to attend their exams due to reasons that are outwith their control or whose performance may have been affected by personal circumstances.

I am struck by the fact that the appeals process now is simply that a senior marker focuses on the correctness and consistency of the initial marking and no longer considers alternative assessment evidence. I have to say that I thought that that was very often the principal thing that many schools submitted on behalf of pupils. It was a case of presenting evidence to suggest that the individual had done better than the process had shown. Notwithstanding that, that is what is happening in 2023.

I imagine that colleagues elsewhere who are intimately concerned with these issues will have debated them thoroughly. We are in a situation in which the Scottish Government is, I think, indicating that a forthcoming bill will alter the situation, so I am not sure that there is terribly much more that we can do at this stage.

PE1961 is, as I mentioned a moment ago, also in the name of Edward Grice on behalf of the Scottish Private Hire Association. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to expand the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021 to include private hire and taxi drivers by creating a specific criminal offence of assaulting, threatening or abusing private hire or taxi drivers while they are engaged in private hire or taxi work; and considering such offences as aggravated when the offence is committed while the driver is enforcing a licensing or operational condition.

We considered this petition, along with the previous one, on 7 December 2022, when we agreed to seek further information from Police Scotland, the Scottish Taxi Federation and Unite the union. Since then, we have received a response from Unite in support of legislating to protect private hire and taxi drivers but recommending that the scope of any such legislation be extended to include all transport workers. The petitioner has indicated that he would be agreeable to that suggestion.

Police Scotland has provided data on the number of breach of the peace and threatening or abusive behaviour offences that have been recorded over the past 10 years but was unable to provide a breakdown by occupation.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

A bill would be required to amend the legislation. It is not just a case of waving a wand and us all saying, “Aye”; there is a bit more of a process to it.

I am inclined to give the petition one last hurrah because Unite has come in in support of the petitioner, who has said that he would be agreeable to its suggestion. I think that I can anticipate the Scottish Government’s response, but, nonetheless, the petition has had that additional level of support, and we can flag up that that is the case and ask whether the Government might be prepared to contemplate that, if even only in the longer term. Are you content with that, Mr Stewart?

Good morning, and welcome to the ninth meeting in 2023 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. We have apologies this morning from the committee’s deputy convener, David Torrance.

Our first agenda item is a decision on whether to take items 4 and 5 in private. Do we agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

We will work something round that. We will keep the petition open, and we will proceed on that basis. Thank you very much, Mr Whittle.

Our next continued petition is PE1900, which was lodged by Kevin John Lawson. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all detainees in police custody can access their prescribed medication, including methadone, in line with existing relevant operational procedures and guidance.

Empowering local authorities to ensure that local communities are given sufficient professional help—sorry, I am reading about the wrong petition.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 18 January. It is a petition of some long standing, as colleagues will remember. Since that meeting, we have received two written submissions from the Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy. The first submission says that NHS Grampian—members will recall that it is involved in these matters—has £1,052,919 per year allocated from the £10 million available to fund work on medication-assisted treatment standards. It includes a letter from NHS Grampian stating that there has been a delay in obtaining the controlled drug licence application and that, although it is difficult to give a definitive timescale, the board is working towards an application being made by the end of April 2023. Presumably—I hope—that has now occurred.

A recent report has been brought to the attention of the committee in the minister’s second submission. The minister highlights that similar issues exist in NHS Lanarkshire as exist in NHS Grampian. In response, the minister has committed to conducting a rapid review of each health board to ascertain the extent of the issues across Scotland, which is positive. The work will include writing to the chief executive of each territorial health board and Police Scotland, details of which are included in the clerk’s note. The minister has stated that she will monitor the situation closely and provide updates to the committee as they become available.

That is a constructive response, following the engagement that we have had with the Scottish Government. Do members have any comments or suggestions?

Thank you. I must say that I find the petition quite intriguing. I should say that I was at school with the son of the man who designed the road at the time. I do not think that that associates me with any personal blame for it, but I remember watching with quiet fascination it all being constructed in the early 1970s, when I was at school. Prior to its construction, it was quite a long journey. It was then quite a short journey, and then it became a very long journey again as traffic volumes increased and people became familiar with the road.

I noted with interest your most recent online campaign on the reconstruction of Charing Cross and the original buildings, which, I think, were demolished, and on the part of the road that runs along the front of the Mitchell library, which is potentially open to being capped. Is that correct?

Yes, I am content that we should do that. I wonder whether we might also ask the SQA the very same question. We would be interested to know the basis on which it has concluded that simply the academic review of the correctness of the marking is sufficient.

The exams diet is coming to a conclusion, and results will be forthcoming in the next few months, so the issue will become a very live one for a considerable number of people. It would be interesting for us to take the petition forward at least to that extent, in order to have greater clarity on why that will be the case. We might ask the SQA what practical implication it believes the approach will have in relation to the outcome of appeals this year in comparison with previous years.

Are we content to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

I am sorry, Mr Choudhury, but what report is that?

Do members agree to that approach?

Members indicated agreement.