Seòmar agus comataidhean

On 22 October, ADES met the SQA separately as part of a joint CAQ network meeting, and the minutes of that meeting show that there appears to have been quite a lengthy discussion about the need for quality assurance and statistical analysis, as well as about the appeals process. Those were separate conversations.

Given those comments and the comments from Larry Flanagan, is there a feeling that the SQA was given too much say in the ACM and that really it was trying to introduce its normal methods earlier in the process? That point came up in the earlier evidence session. In the development of the process, was the SQA’s voice stronger than that of classroom teachers, or was the balance right?

I was, but I was not really satisfied with what you said. My understanding was that the OECD sent a paper to Scottish Government officials about who would participate in the review, and one of the questions in that paper was about which additional non-ministry academics should be approached. The Scottish Government and the OECD have been unable to tell me who was discussed and why you chose particular individuals. I am confused by that, because there are a number of voices in Scottish education who have fundamental concerns about curriculum for excellence and the principles behind it.

With respect, Keir Bloomer was not happy with the process either. He said that it was evident that it had been “stage managed by government”. Therefore, I do not think that it is right to reference him as a defence for not having taken time to speak to Professor Paterson.

Quite frankly, I find it shocking that the OECD did not have the time to speak to Professor Paterson, who is highly regarded in Scotland by Scottish teachers, parents and many people in academia. That the voice of one of the leading critics of the current curriculum was not included and only his papers read confirms many of my concerns.

The report skirts over issues around knowledge. It pushes points, but it does not question whether the capacities that are at the heart of CFE are what causes the problem. As a result, the report is less than it would have been.

I do not need an answer to that, convener. I am happy to let other members come in.

I return to the original line of questioning that you started, convener. I have serious concerns that the report is flawed and has not engaged properly with non-ministry academics. I have written twice to the OECD without ever receiving a reply, and when, after a freedom of information request, I asked the Scottish Government which non-ministry academics were suggested to the OECD, I was told that a planned phone call to discuss additional participants did not take place. I am therefore interested in finding out how the non-ministry academics were suggested and where the view that CFE had been universally embraced in Scotland came from.

I had not intended to ask a question, but I was confused by the comments about data sharing. I know that those issues have been kicking about for a while, and I understand them. However, if we put those issues to one side, the number of two-year-olds who are registering has fallen since the programme was introduced, so fewer two-year-olds are benefiting now than when the programme started. Does the minister have an explanation for that?

Also, I hear from local ELC providers that they are actively discouraged from engaging directly with families and that they have to wait for the local authority and others to identify them. They cannot go out into their own communities and publicise the offer. Is that correct?

I would like you to add local authorities to that list. My local authority, Dumfries and Galloway Council, might have a view, given the volume of wind-related planning applications that it receives.

Thank you, convener. I thank the committee for making time for me to speak. I am not generally in the habit of attending this committee, and I recognise that considering petitions is primarily your work, but I was keen to come today to express my support for PE1864.

From my work as a constituency MSP over the past five years, I know that the petition speaks to a real problem and captures the concerns of many people who live in rural Scotland. The present planning system for onshore wind leaves the people who are most directly affected by what are often industrial-scale projects feeling ignored and irrelevant. They come up against developers who spend what seem like endless resources promoting applications and gaming the planning system. They see the views of community councils and local authorities discounted and they are slowly worn down by repeat applications and long-drawn-out, multistage processes. That is not fair and it does not reflect well on a modern democratic country.

I strongly believe that we need to tackle the climate crisis and that, in doing so, there is room for all energy sources. However, that cannot be at the expense of small rural communities. The way in which the process operates needs to be looked at urgently again. It is time that the Parliament gave our communities a voice.

I therefore ask the committee to keep the petition open, at the very least, and to continue to follow the development of the planning framework. I also ask you to consider taking further oral evidence from the petitioner and to see whether there is a way in which the Parliament can give individuals and communities a voice and ensure that the issues are properly explored.

I have no relevant interests to declare.