Earlier this month, during the debate on the programme for government, Liz Smith made some legitimate points about the expectation of the public that both of Scotland’s Governments would work together to address the cost of living crisis. It would be reasonable of me to observe that, in order for them to work together, the relationship requires to be respectful and one of equals, and that the conduct of the UK Government towards its Scottish counterpart, and the comments from the new Prime Minister that were directed at the First Minister, have hardly engendered that. However, I will leave that to one side, because Liz Smith, as a long-serving and respected member of this institution, was right in what she asserted.
However, the public has other, similar expectations, which, I argue, we MSPs ought to have of ourselves. As an MSP of less long standing than Liz Smith but who has served for more than a decade, I will focus on one of those.
The oft-heard cry in this place is that it is the role of the Parliament to hold the Government to account—and it is. However, I say, particularly to Stephen Kerr, that how the institution sets about that task is every bit as important.
Since returning to the back benches earlier this year, I have been pleased to serve on the Parliament’s Education, Children and Young People Committee. Under the convenership of Mr Kerr’s successor,?Sue Webber, that has been a pleasure, not least because of the approach that has been fostered and taken by members—a genuine cross-party endeavour to interrogate fairly the condition of our education system in a balanced way, giving credit where that is due and offering criticism where and when that is merited. The recent unanimous report on the Scottish attainment challenge was evidence of that.
I contend that the Parliament would benefit from the replication of that approach in the chamber, where, too often, regrettably, oppositional politics tend to overwhelm the reaching of measured and balanced conclusions. Too often, our debate—especially on topics such as education—descends into a “Government awful” versus “Government good” contest, whereas the truth lies somewhere in between. The Scottish Government is not perfect and we, on these benches, sometimes need to acknowledge that. However, nor is it anything like as deserving of the nature of the criticism that sometimes pours down on it from the Opposition benches.
In treating subjects such as education as a political football, not only do we let down those who seek the best from it—be they parents, pupils or professionals—we also sometimes ignore or downplay the actual causes of shortcomings, or at least the contributory factors to those. That does nothing to achieve the goals that collectively, I think, we all hold.
There is much to celebrate in our education system, despite its being sideswiped by the pandemic. I will highlight, briefly, one or two aspects of that, as they relate to my Angus South constituency: the significant strides that have been made, in partnership between the SNP Scottish Government and Angus Council, to improve our school estate; the progress that has been made—again, jointly—in delivering a transformational early years and childcare offering; and the congratulations that are due to the teaching staff and pupils of Monifieth and Webster’s high schools and Arbroath academy, whose 2021-22 exam results performance represented a significant step forward.
However, equally within education, locally and nationally, there remain areas for improvement, as the cabinet secretary has acknowledged. Above all, not all children enjoy or benefit from our education equally. This year’s exam results revealed that the attainment gap between the richest and poorest pupils had grown, with the gap in higher qualifications almost doubling and the national 5 and advanced highers gaps widening considerably.
In the course of participating in the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s inquiry into progress in the attainment challenge, I was struck not only by the passion of the teachers we met in west central Scotland for the task at hand but by their willingness to innovate and learn from mistakes.
More recently, in the course of the committee’s inquiry into the impact of college regionalisation, I had a wry smile at hearing from college representatives about the benefits of mergers and regionalisation. Oh, how I remember the reaction of the college establishment when the idea of mergers and regionalisation was advanced by Michael Russell—let us just say that it was arctic in its warmth.
I highlight those examples to illustrate the importance of, on the one hand, listening to those at the coalface and then rolling out best practice, while, on the other hand, acknowledging that sometimes we have to implement change because it is the right thing to do, regardless of resistance to it from vested interests.
That brings me to the second subject that I want to focus on, which is the change to come, as highlighted by other members. More specifically, I want to talk about the implementation of the recommendations of Ken Muir’s report, “Putting Learners at the Centre: Towards a Future Vision for Scottish Education”. The Education, Children and Young People Committee’s recent session with the leadership of the SQA threw up an interesting exchange around the shaping of reform—or, more accurately, the replacement—of that body. We explored the concern on the part of some that what is being embarked on will, as other members have noted, produce only a rebranding. As Michael Marra highlighted at that session, the fact that, of the 11-strong delivery board, six are employees of the SQA only heightens those concerns, whether they are justified or not.
As I said earlier, having coalface input is important. If nothing else, it can identify problematic and unintended consequences of change. I am in no doubt about the intent of the Government and the cabinet secretary in that regard, but when the SQA chief executive, Fiona Robertson, tells a committee that she does not accept that the decision to replace the SQA is indicative of the conclusion being reached that it has failed, we can understand the concern. If the SQA does not think that it is being replaced because it got things wrong, how can we be certain, with such a significant in-house presence on the board, that the recommendations that come forward will acknowledge the need for genuine change of the sort that Ken Muir and the cabinet secretary, by their comments and actions, have indicated is required?
I wonder whether, during her closing remarks, the cabinet secretary might provide reassurance about exactly how she will ensure that the modus operandi of the new awarding body, which it has been accepted must change, will undergo the transformation that is being sought. Sadly, I ask that while holding the view, after listening to Mr Kerr’s contribution—and, to a lesser extent, that of Willie Rennie—that there is a far greater chance of that than there is of my earlier plea being heeded. Call me naive, but I live in hope.