Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, and welcome to the 14th meeting in 2025 of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. We have received apologies from Bill Kidd, and Clare Haughey is attending in his place and joins us remotely.

The first item on our agenda is day 2 of our stage 2 consideration of the Education (Scotland) Bill. I welcome back the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and her supporting officials, committee members and other members of the Scottish Parliament who have lodged amendments.

Section 2—The function of awarding qualifications

Amendment 3, in the name of Ross Greer, is grouped with amendment 230.

No—it was never my intention that we do. However, to continue until about 9 o’clock gives us an hour following the break that we had. I am sorry, Mr Mason—I tried to tell as many members as I could. I am aiming to finish at about 9 o’clock, if that suits members, the cabinet secretary and her officials. We will go on for about another 20 minutes, if members are okay with that.

Amendment 302, in the name of Stephen Kerr, is grouped with amendment 303. I call Miles Briggs to move amendment 302 and to speak to both amendments in the group.

I agree with that. I will certainly make a strong effort to speak to the convener about the fact that the amendments were not grouped with the accreditation amendments that we considered earlier. Perhaps it would have been easier if my amendments had been included in that earlier group.

On a serious point, although we hope that the higher history problems that we experienced last year are behind us, there is still a great deal of concern and ill feeling among teachers, some SQA staff and many across the wider education landscape. Some of the people who have been most vocal have been retired teachers who experienced issues in previous years and were promised that the culture would change, but they saw history repeating itself. To reassure them that we are treating this seriously, it is right that the amendments have been lodged and that we are having a full discussion.

Amendment 297, which is in my name, is grouped with amendments 298 to 301. I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for their time on Monday to discuss the amendments in this group. There have been a number of references to them, and they have so far been positive, which has encouraged me throughout the proceedings so far.

There is no doubt that my motivation behind the amendments was the situation around last year’s higher history exam. We will come on to that in a moment. In preparation for a number of our evidence sessions on last year’s higher history exam, I was alerted to a petition to the Parliament back in 2013. Petition PE1484, by Ian Thow, called for a number of things, including the setting up of an independent regulator to consider examinations in Scotland. When I was considering my amendments, I contacted the petitioner, and he was extremely encouraged that, despite his disappointment some 12 years ago, the idea was still on the Parliament’s radar and was going to be discussed and considered by the committee.

Not everything in the petition forms part of my amendments but, at its heart, my amendment 297 seeks to put in place an independent individual as a regulator to consider complaints about the exam process. I make the point about the petition back in 2013 because last year’s higher history was not a one-off event; there have been other events where parents, pupils and staff have raised concerns about SQA examinations and the SQA has looked into those itself. Indeed, when the petition was dismissed in November 2013, it was because the Scottish Government said that it was a matter for the SQA—which I agree with—but the SQA said that things were working “effectively and efficiently”.

Anyone who has looked at last year’s higher history exam results and the debate around them—whether they think that the outcome of the review is correct or still have questions—will notice, first, that that review was refused for some time. It took the former chief executive until September even to have a review. Then, the findings of that review were hotly disputed.

The Scottish Association of Teachers of History survey quotes teachers of history in Scotland who said that the review of the SQA into its own examination was a “whitewash” and

“the most biased and useless investigation I have ever seen a public body attempt to pass off as legitimate”.

I ask Miles Briggs to wind up and say whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 302.

Amendment 74, in the name of Ross Greer, is grouped with amendments 75, 76, 79 to 83, 96 to 107, 109, 110 and 114.

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

As the outcome of the division on amendment 278 is tied, I will use my casting vote as convener in order for the committee to reach a decision. I vote in favour of amendment 278.

Amendment 278 agreed to.

Amendment 279 not moved.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

Section 13 agreed to.

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 261 disagreed to.

Okay. Now that we have got you connected, and given that we have started this process, I will take you at the end.