łÉČËżěĘÖ

Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 23 June 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1956 contributions

|

Education, Children and Young People Committee

“Higher History Review 2024”

Meeting date: 19 February 2025

Douglas Ross

I have seen a range of communications between you and Kirsty MacDonald.

Education, Children and Young People Committee

“Higher History Review 2024”

Meeting date: 19 February 2025

Douglas Ross

But you do not say that. At no point in the email that you sent at 9:57 am on 20 December do you ever mention the unions.

Education, Children and Young People Committee

“Higher History Review 2024”

Meeting date: 19 February 2025

Douglas Ross

Let us look at some of the things that you emailed Kirsty MacDonald about and asked her to redact. This comes from pages 60 and 61 of the SATH survey:

“They need to open up questioning and criticism instead of gaslighting and removing contracts from anyone who challenges them. If you speak out you are not getting invited to return, regardless of how good you are as a marker, because the SQA does not like being questioned. Ask teachers. Ask the markers. Stop listening to the echo chamber that the organisation operates in.”

That seems to be more critical of the SQA than of an individual staff member who is not mentioned there at all and it does not seem to be something that any union representing an individual staff member would be worried about.

Education, Children and Young People Committee

“Higher History Review 2024”

Meeting date: 19 February 2025

Douglas Ross

But we are not hearing it. We are being told that it has to be redacted.

Education, Children and Young People Committee

“Higher History Review 2024”

Meeting date: 19 February 2025

Douglas Ross

I am sorry, Ms Stewart, but those quotes do not mention an individual member of staff. They are critical of your organisation, but they are not critical of an individual member of staff.

Education, Children and Young People Committee

“Higher History Review 2024”

Meeting date: 19 February 2025

Douglas Ross

It is in the plural.

Education, Children and Young People Committee

“Higher History Review 2024”

Meeting date: 19 February 2025

Douglas Ross

I am sorry, but I am just asking whether it is a team of one.

Education, Children and Young People Committee

“Higher History Review 2024”

Meeting date: 19 February 2025

Douglas Ross

Well, I would like an answer.

Ms Rogers—

Education, Children and Young People Committee

“Higher History Review 2024”

Meeting date: 19 February 2025

Douglas Ross

Ms Rogers, are you able to enlighten us?

Education, Children and Young People Committee

“Higher History Review 2024”

Meeting date: 19 February 2025

Douglas Ross

As I understand it from SATH, it has had no correspondence on its multiple drafts of an apology and the further redactions that have been requested since it appeared before the committee.

What is your view, Ms Stewart, as the interlocutor between the union, an individual member of staff and the survey? SATH has made clear its view; it held its hands up, and Kirsty MacDonald was very honest with us and said that it was wrong that the name was included, but it is not willing to redact those comments that I read out, because it does not believe that they identify an individual member of staff. Given that there has been no communication—as I understand it; please tell me if I am wrong—since SATH appeared before the committee, what can be done with the survey now?

I think that you, Ms Rogers—correct me if I am wrong; it might have been Ms Stewart—said that you wanted to get that out into the public domain and that it should be shared. What can SATH do now, if it is not hearing anything further from you, and given the concerns that you previously highlighted that the apology was not accepted by the member of staff and they wanted changes, and that redactions are still required? Where are we with that?