Chamber and committees

I thank everyone for their submissions, which I will refer to, but I will come to you first, Graham Hutton. In the SLS submission, you say that reform is overdue, and you speak quite positively about some of the things that are happening. Earlier, we explored the fact that, fundamentally, the same people from the SQA will be popping up on the other side of reform. Does SLS have any sense that the SQA and the people who run it accept the criticisms that have been levelled in their entirety? In any event, are those who are presiding over those issues able and willing to address those criticisms as we go forward?

I am very grateful for that.

Thanks for that.

My final question is on something else that you mentioned in your opening remarks. You were asked in your remit to be bold in your conclusions and to say what needed to be done. As part of that, you recommended separating the SQA’s awarding function and its regulatory function. The University of Stirling has told the committee that the bill ignores that proposal and that that is a mistake. What is your view? If you agree with that comment, what should be done to this bill?

It is a very quick one, convener.

Good morning. The question is for Barry Black. My colleague Ross Greer asked whether this is the right time to have the bill, given that the rest of the reform agenda has perhaps not yet been bottomed out as fully as we might like. In your written submission, you said:

“This bill comes across as an attempt to protect the system as it currently is and prevent real and meaningful changes further down the road.”

Are you suggesting that the bill could be prejudicial to the further reform agenda?

Barry Black, I want to stick with you on that point and the answer that you just gave to John Mason. You have been quite outspoken about the bill, particularly with regard to the replacement for the SQA, going so far as to suggest that MSPs should reject the bill in its entirety. If that does not happen and this bill goes through largely as drafted, do you concede that it will nevertheless achieve something?

I will throw a question to Professor Priestley on the committees in a second but, before I do so, Barry Black, I want to ask you whether, if MSPs choose not to reject the bill and allow it to go forward, you have clear in your mind, say, three key amendments that you think that we should be proposing to actually deliver the meaningful reform that you have asked for in your submission.

I will put my final question to Professor Priestley, but Professor Donaldson may wish to come in, given his remarks earlier.

The University of Stirling’s submission welcomes that the bill makes provision for learner and practitioner charters, interest committees and representation on the board of the new body. We heard from Professor Muir that certain challenges might arise around that. Will those proposals ensure that the new body is appropriately shaped and responsive to learners, teachers and stakeholders?

Good morning, Professor Muir.

I was very interested in what you said in your opening remarks. First, you talked about the chronology of how we have got to this point. In 2021, the Scottish Government announced that it would scrap the SQA and create a separate inspectorate. Your report, which came out in 2022, made recommendations that, presumably, were based on the presumption that the SQA would be scrapped and the inspection function removed from Education Scotland. Would you have recommended those changes had they not already been pre-programmed by the Government?

I am very grateful for that.

You have said that we need to look at the education system as a whole and that its complexity is remarkable—and I agree with you. The bill, however, is part of a wider set of reforms and policy work around education. You mentioned in your opening remarks Hayward, Withers and Morgan as well as several others, and said that, taken together, what their reports said will meet the needs of Scotland’s education system. Some voices have suggested that doing it like this—that is, in almost a piecemeal, a-bit-here, a-bit-there way—is not the optimum approach. What is your view of that? Is now the right time to introduce this bill before other aspects of the reform programme are bottomed out?

George Adam put to you the point about international students. The committee has heard that there are Scottish Government figures that say that the cash for each student place is about the same as it was 10 years ago, which is a 19 per cent reduction in real terms. We have also heard that there is a funding shortfall of about £1,500 per student. The National Union of Students Scotland told the committee that that has led to an “overreliance”—that is the NUS’s word—on cross-subsidy by international students. What is the Scottish Government’s response to that and will anything change as a result of the budget?