Chamber and committees

I will explore that issue in a little more detail. Dr Stewart, you mentioned learning around co-production. What did you mean by that? Have you taken into account the concerns that have been raised about co-production and participation not just by the commissioner but by a range of other experts in the field of children’s rights?

I appreciate that, and I entirely understand that there is no easy answer to the question. However, given the comments of the children’s commissioner, I would expect you to engage with his office and with others to understand those concerns. I know that Dr Tracy Kirk has engaged with you on those issues.

I would like to explore the functioning of the NQ21 group, and specifically the level of participation of those involved. You will be aware that, on the day that the appeals process was confirmed, Cameron Garrett, who was the member of the Scottish Youth Parliament on the group, said:

“As the only young person who sits on”

the SQA’s NQ21 group

“and the only member representing young people, I have not had an equal input into discussions around the appeals process this year at NQ group meetings.

Young people have been let down and ignored by this process.”

He went on to say that organisations such as the Children and Young People’s Commissioner and the people who are involved in the SQA: Where’s Our Say? campaign, as well as the Scottish Youth Parliament,

“have been calling for a no-detriment policy and exceptional circumstances to be taken into consideration as substantive points. Neither have been considered in this process.”

Subsequent to those comments being made, did you reach out to Mr Garrett to better understand why he felt that way about his experience? Could you talk a bit about what you believe you have learned from those discussions and how subsequent processes to this one can more effectively involve the voices of young people?

Thank you. In a similar vein, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland made some pretty scathing comments about the concept of co-production. Dr Stewart said that that is an area of learning from the process over the past year. Bruce Adamson, the commissioner, made the same point that Cameron Garrett made. He said:

“Some very strange examples of ‘co-production’ being discussed at the moment. If you have very limited involvement of young people and then ignore their views, you can’t call it co-production just because they were in the room.”

My question is similar to my question about Cameron. Have you met the commissioner subsequent to those comments being made to discuss his concerns about the concept of co-production?

I accept that.

I am conscious of the time, and I am probably intruding on the time of other members. If I could come back in at the end, that would be appreciated, but I understand if I cannot.

I am sorry to jump in. I do not particularly want to pursue the specifics of the appeals process, but, given that you have raised the issue and that we have had exchanges about it in the past, I note that there was not a particularly large number of appeals this year. Did any of those appeals result in a downgrade?

What timescale has the Government given you for the work that will get you the more granular information that is required?

We will probably book you in for an appointment in spring to talk about that.

You mentioned some of the money for transport, which is a useful example of another issue that I want to raise in relation to the explanation that Government provided for underspend. Your report mentions that the explanation that was given for some of the underspend on money for buses, for example, was that some operators moved back to a place of viability more quickly than was expected. No explanation is mentioned in your report for the underspend on rail. Is that simply because it is a relatively high-level report and you were just looking to provide some commentary, or are there areas in which you have not been given a sufficient explanation from the Government for underspends?

To return to Daniel Johnson’s initial line of questioning, I am still trying to understand the relationship between the underspend of Covid-specific funds in 2020-21 and the reallocation of non-Covid budgets towards Covid-related purposes in that year. In the report, the Auditor General identified a £700 million gap between the amount of money that was specifically allocated for Covid-related purposes and the identified spend in that area. However, simultaneously, more than £1 billion was reallocated from non-Covid budgets to Covid-specific purposes. How much of that £700 million was spent but has not yet been identified as Covid spend, for the reasons that you noted earlier? How much of it was simply not spent in that year because, presumably, it came too late and other money has already been allocated to meet that need?

I think that “£5 million underspend” is probably not the most useful phrase for us to use, and the business allocation might be the best example of that. The money was spent and it was spent quite well, just not in exactly the same way.

I have a final, potentially quite daft, question. You mentioned some of the reallocations, such as money that had been initially allocated for bus passenger subsidies being moved over to support operators directly. I take it that, in terms of the budget lines that list spend on buses, that is the same money appearing in the same place, and it does not create the appearance of an underspend in one area, because that money has been allocated to spend in another.