Chamber and committees

We heard that teachers talked to one another and did not understand why pupils had underperformed. The cabinet secretary said that overpresentation was a key theme in the report and that students were potentially sitting exams at a level that they were not ready for, which impacted on performance. Is it your understanding that there is overpresentation that sets young people up to fail?

I have a couple of questions about literacy standards. It has been suggested that one key reason for the fall in performance in higher history is candidates’ literacy standards. However, we have not seen similar falls in marks in other literacy-based subjects. What work has the SQA undertaken to analyse whether candidates who took higher history also performed worse in other subjects? What plans are being put in place to publish that?

Thank you for that.

I return to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s question. Has there been a failure in exam timetabling this year?

I asked that question because I met a constituent on Monday whose daughter is sitting psychology, and there was initially an exam clash with English. To be honest, I do not understand why any other exam was scheduled to be on the same day as higher English, given that no fewer than 34,000 pupils have sat it in any of the past five years. The SQA has now said that, in the interest of wellbeing, the psychology exam will be moved forward by two weeks. You used the analogy of someone who is planning to sit their driving test. It is concerning for young people who are planning when they will sit their exams to be told that they will now sit one of them two weeks earlier than they expected. That increases the pressure on them.

I know that timetabling is not a perfect science, but I do not understand why the contingency date of 2 June was not used for the psychology exam, given the lower numbers of candidates that were presenting. That is why I asked the question. Although you have said that you listened to other partners, it seems that parents and young people have not been part of that conversation. What seems to be a very straightforward solution, which I have just put to you, has not been taken forward and that is now putting more pressure on young people and teachers.

Would it not therefore have been more sensible to move psychology to that date rather than forward? The rationale that SQA has outlined relates to pupil wellbeing, but moving an exam forward is seen by parents and pupils not as being for their wellbeing but stressful. I did not understand the timetabling. Given the significant changes that have been put in place, it feels like the timetabling for this set of exams has been more problematic than in previous years.

It goes without saying that we all want to see the Promise delivered. However, I am sorry to say that the statement does not feel like the words of a Government that is on course to meet the Promise. For example, in it, the Government congratulates itself on homelessness legislation when the fact is that, over the past two years, there has been a 14 per cent increase in the number of care leavers under the age of 25 who have been made homeless or threatened with homelessness. That is a complete failure.

Nowhere in the statement is the national social work agency mentioned, but the agency will be key to delivering the Promise. What is the vision for the national social work agency, and when will the agency be delivered?

The fact is that the hospice sector is facing a double whammy of national insurance increases and meeting the agenda for change. The £5 million announced in the budget is welcome, but the sector is calling for £15 million to stand still. We know that £350 million is available in contingency funds in the Scottish Government’s NHS budget for the current financial year. If the issue is not addressed, hospices across Scotland—which are setting their budgets now—will see the disparity increase even further. Is the Scottish Government looking to provide the £15 million that the sector needs, and not just the £5 million that is currently in the budget?

I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement and for his engagement with members on the bill to date. There are some welcome reforms in the bill, which the Scottish Conservatives agree with, but we also want to see the Scottish Government move further. Yesterday, the Education, Children and Young People Committee heard from college leaders on the impact that the loss of both the skills boost fund and the flexible workforce development fund has had on upskilling and supporting key employers as well as on skill shortages, especially around social care. I hope that there is an opportunity to correct that with what the minister has announced. It is clear that we also need to see more business involvement in regional skills development work. The Scottish Conservatives would like to see additional reforms to make more private sector funding available to the college sector in the delivery of key sector courses.

I have two questions for the minister. First, how does he envisage the employer network helping businesses to influence, secure and embed funded courses of the type that many employers are telling us are not currently being provided to upskill the workforce? Secondly, as employers in England can access support from the apprenticeship levy not only for training but for apprenticeship pay, is that a reform that ministers will look to introduce to help significantly increase the number of apprenticeships that small and medium-sized enterprises can deliver in communities across our country?

My final question is about college student associations. In its inquiry report, the committee called for minimum standards for funding and the independence of college student associations. To date, what progress, if any, has been made in relation to that call?

Thank you, convener.