Exam Results
Item 2 on the agenda is consideration of a paper in my name on the summer 2000 examination results. Obviously, over the summer, there has been considerable public concern about the situation at the Scottish Qualifications Authority and the problems associated with the issuing of certificates to highers candidates. Several MSPs have requested a parliamentary inquiry into this area of policy, and my paper sets out some points concerning responsibility.
The SQA as an agency formally falls under the remit of the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning. As a result, where the departmental remit effectively becomes the committee remit, we have oversight of the SQA as an agency. The clerk wrote to the Scottish Executive seeking clarification of these issues; I will read the committee a letter that we received this morning from David Wallace, who is a private secretary in the enterprise and lifelong learning department. He wrote:
"Dear Mr Watkins
You queried the breakdown of Ministerial responsibility for the Minister of Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, in particular with respect to the Scottish Qualifications Authority.
The Minister for Children and Education is responsible for schools and the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning is responsible for further and higher education. Qualifications policy obviously affects both schools and further and higher education, so responsibility for it is shared by the two Ministers. The Minister for Children and Education leads on matters impacting on schools, and the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning leads on matters impacting on further and higher education.
The administrative processes of sponsoring the SQA is the responsibility of the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, but he consults closely with the Minister for Children and Education before exercising his functions in this area."
That letter chimes with my paper, which highlights the fact that the SQA and its governance is a responsibility of the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and is therefore within the province of this committee.
The paper makes the point that the majority of issues associated with this matter have related to schools issues and schools qualifications. As the letter from the enterprise and lifelong learning department highlights, schools issues are primarily the province of the Minister for Children and Education. Over the summer recess, Sam Galbraith, as that minister, has taken the lead in responding to the SQA's problems.
As for the handling of the matter, I have agreed that, as this committee has responsibility for the agency, we will discuss this issue in advance of a meeting later this morning with the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to determine who will do what in the inquiry and what issues will be covered. Probably the only issue that relates to this committee's work is the governance of the SQA; the remainder, which concerns the impact of what has happened on schools and school qualifications, is quite properly a matter for the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.
With those remarks, I open up the item for discussion and invite members to reflect on my comments and on the papers that have been circulated.
As many people sit their SQA qualifications through colleges, is it not appropriate for this committee to deal with the aspects of the problem that relate to college students?
I agree with your comments, convener, on the division of responsibility between the two ministers and the two committees. The SQA formally falls under the remit of the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and, as a result, under the remit of our committee. However, it is also on record that, at the outset of the committee cycle, I asked the clerks where responsibility for higher still would lie. The clear answer was that such responsibility lay with the Minister for Children and Education.
The questions about the certification and qualification process that have arisen as a consequence of the situation at the SQA is properly a matter for the Education, Culture and Sport Committee in the first instance. However, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee must examine the governance of the SQA in both the short and longer terms, not least because of the importance of the examination system and the national and international business community's confidence in the results and the process as a whole. It is important from an enterprise perspective that we examine the longer-term governance of the SQA.
I agree with some of Allan Wilson's comments. The committee must consider three key areas. First, we should consider the impact of the mess on higher and further education—the implications for next year for the students who did or did not get a place in the clearing system. We must find out who has lost out.
Secondly, we must consider the accountability of the SQA to ministers and the way in which Parliament and the Executive can hold arm's-length organisations to account. We must consider whether the current system of accountability is flawed.
Thirdly, we must examine the history of the SQA, the way in which it was put together and from where the expertise was drawn. I have heard anecdotal evidence from people involved that the majority of people were brought in from the Scottish Vocational Educational Council, rather than from the Scottish Examining Board. We must investigate whether that could be a fundamental flaw in the organisation. We must look back over the past few years to see how the SQA has been performing. If there are fundamental organisational problems, we may find that those go back several years. We must consider the SQA's track record. The committee has quite a lot of work to do on this matter.
My principal concern is that a clear message be sent from the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee that the Scottish Parliament is attempting to deal with the unprecedented crisis in Scottish education. That is why it is essential that we have a crystal-clear idea of the division of the remit between the committees. The overriding concern is to restore the confidence of parents, teachers and schoolchildren in our exam system. The priority should be speed.
I have a practical approach to suggest. I am glad that Mary Mulligan and Brian Monteith are attending this meeting. I suspect that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee is better placed to take on board the immediate concerns of the public and to move to address those with particular reference to the recent fiasco. I am absolutely clear that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee has an overriding role in investigating the governance of the SQA and the implications of the disaster for our further and higher education institutions. I am concerned about what has happened to confidence in the calibre of students going into our higher and further education institutions. If our examination results system is tainted—as it currently seems to be—there are wider implications for those institutions and for Scotland. I would be happy for the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to embark on the immediate consideration of the problem and for this committee to retain responsibility for the governance of SQA and the wider implications for higher education.
There appears to be much cross-party agreement about Parliament's role, which is to carry out a thorough and wide-ranging inquiry—that is our paramount duty. We should carry out such an inquiry in order to find out what mistakes were made that led to this shambolic situation—embarrassing to everyone—and to ensure that such mistakes are never made again.
The practical question that we face today is what our involvement should be. With respect, convener, I differ from your opinion on the matter of detail. Until the remit of the inquiry is established, it would not be proper for the committee to decide on the extent of its involvement. I agreed thoroughly with the Liberal Democrat spokesman who was quoted this morning as saying that the inquiry should be "thorough and wide-ranging". We will find out at the meeting of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee this morning whether the remit will be agreed in that way or whether it will be restricted. The remit should also include issues relating to marking and the quality of that marking. Until the Education, Culture and Sport Committee establishes the remit of the inquiry, it would be premature for the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee to reach a final conclusion on its role. I agree that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee should be the lead committee. It is common sense that two committees should not conduct parallel inquiries into the same matter; that would not be practical or sensible. However, the remit should be established carefully and coolly.
It is of paramount importance that there is complete openness on the part of the Executive in the inquiry. That openness and transparency must include total access to all relevant documents, in particular to all memorandums, letters and communication that passed between the SQA and the ministers involved. If we were denied access to that information, the inquiry would verge on a whitewash. Nobody wants that and I hope that the ministers will take the opportunity this morning to reassure the Education, Culture and Sport Committee that there will be no whitewash in the Scottish Parliament.
I agree with many of the comments that have been made. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee should be the lead committee and the major issue for the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee is the governance of the SQA. Our committee should also consider the impact of the situation on the lifelong learning strategy. As Annabel Goldie said, we must consider the impact on our further and higher education colleges and the implications for the lifelong learning strategy that the committee has outlined. I would like to see the figures relating to higher and further education colleges in order to determine the current funding situation.
I welcome the comments made by committee members. As Annabel Goldie said, it is clear that those people most seriously affected were students, their families and the teachers who had done everything that had been asked of them but were left in such a terrible situation when the results were published in August. That is my main concern.
The suggestion that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee should take the lead in finding out what happened, how the students were affected, what the problems were and how that can be put right is sensible. We need to consider how we can restore confidence in our exam system because that will have an impact on the future of all our children. However, we are not in the business of ruling any member out of our deliberations. It is always open for members to attend other committees, but in this case I would like to extend an open invitation to members of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee to attend meetings of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee when we are taking evidence from ministers and other people who are involved in the situation.
If we are to deal with this issue, we will need to take evidence from the SQA. I accept totally that the remit of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee includes the SQA and its governance. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee cannot fulfil the remit of its inquiry without taking evidence from the SQA. I hope that members will accept that.
It is important to have clear lines of investigation so that there can be no cover-up or whitewash, as Fergus Ewing said. We must get everything out into the open. That will be done most efficiently if the committees work together. I suspect that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee will start the inquiry, knowing that there are implications in the longer term for lifelong learning, as Marilyn Livingstone said. I accept totally that it is open to this committee to hold its own inquiry into whatever aspect it wants.
I thank you, convener, for allowing me to address the committee. I share many of the views that have been expressed. I want to point out some areas that I think this committee might usefully explore in examining not just how the crisis came about, but its impact.
As has been said, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee will want to examine the impact on lifelong learning. Some of the most interesting questions will relate to the impact on pupils who have applied for university courses. Have they had to take a different course from the one that they would have taken? What will be the impact on costs for institutions? Will the SQA's quite understandable decision not to mark people down if their certificates were incomplete or incorrect have any ramifications? Will there be people going to university who might not otherwise have done so? Will drop-out rates be affected, because some people on courses might not previously have been accepted? Dr Murray's point about the impact on colleges that hold higher still examinations is particularly important.
The information gathered by this committee will be most helpful in foreseeing the difficulties that might arise further down the road and what can be done to mitigate their impact. Reassurance from this committee about the impact on higher education would go a long way towards restoring confidence in the Scottish education system.
I want to draw this item to a close and to agree the route that we will take. I thank members for their contributions. The discussion has been helpful. Clearly, there is a division between issues of governance, which are the responsibility of this committee, and issues of qualifications, which are primarily of interest to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. That is a helpful division of responsibilities.
I propose that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee undertake hearings on the issues of governance as a matter of urgency. That may require us to alter the time scale for our inquiry on the new economy; the clerks will examine the implications of that. I imagine that we will want to hear from the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Henry McLeish, the SQA and others about the relationship between the SQA and Government ministers. I understand that various comments have been made overnight about changes at the SQA, which may affect those issues.
The issues relating to qualifications are properly a matter for the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. The convener of that committee has had discussions with me about the shape of its inquiry; that will be the subject of further deliberation.
The only question that remains to be resolved is to what extent we need to address the issue of qualifications in respect of further and higher education and the lifelong learning agenda. At this stage, I do not think that it is possible to define entirely where the matter will settle. The qualifications issue will be taken forward primarily by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. However, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee will want to ensure that the issues relating to further and higher education and the lifelong learning agenda are properly taken into account. For that reason, regular dialogue between the convener of this committee, the convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and members of both committees will be helpful.
We can discuss whether the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee should appoint a reporter to represent our interests on the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. I will take views on that in a moment. I encourage members with a specific interest in the subject to attend meetings of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee when the inquiry is under way. Does that course of action command the agreement of the committee?
There is one other issue. We already have a tight timetable for our inquiry into the new economy and e-commerce. The student finance bill is also coming down the track. One of those will have to be put aside for the moment. I do not think that we can do justice to this inquiry if we slot it in with what we already have in our work programme.
It is clear that the time scale for the inquiry into the new economy will have to be revised. We do not expect to have the details of the student finance legislation until the middle of October and we will not take hearings on it until later in October. We have a window in which we can do this work, but it will involve delaying the inquiry into the new economy. The public expect us to get this issue resolved quickly. We should take precautions to ensure that we do the job quickly because, for school pupils, it is not that long before the next diet of higher examinations in the spring. We must have the issues resolved well in advance of then. We will have to change the time scale of our inquiries, but that will be to enable us to reassure the public.
I echo George Lyon's suggestion that something must give if we are to carry out what is expected of us in this essential inquiry.
I want to pursue the point about access to documents. I suggest that the convener might want to write to the Executive to obtain all relevant documents before we question the ministers responsible, so that we have the chance to prepare ourselves properly for the task. The background documents will be essential if we are to conduct an intelligent investigation.
The key point is that we must be careful. I am determined that the two committees will not conduct the same inquiry. We will do different bits of it. We will examine the governance of the SQA and its relationship to ministers. In preparing this committee for that process, I will request of ministers all the documentation in relation to the governance of the SQA and its relationship to Government ministers. I am sure that the convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee will do likewise for the qualifications inquiry. There will be some grey areas, but I am anxious to minimise them.
If the remits of the two inquires were agreed definitively between the two conveners, that would go a long way towards avoiding overlap and would address any problems that might arise. The balance will be mopped up by the appointment by this committee of a reporter to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee inquiry.
The point about agreeing remits is fine. We will take that forward. Do we want to go down the route of formally appointing a reporter to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee?
Yes.
The appointment of a reporter will facilitate communication, given the pressure of work on this committee.
Can I have suggestions on who might want to do it?
I propose Marilyn Livingstone.
Is that acceptable to everyone?
Members indicated agreement.
Marilyn Livingstone will report on our interests to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. Are there any other points on this item?
Given that we will need to look back at when the SQA was formed, and how it was set up, to identify where some of the structural problems lie, will we have access to papers from previous Administrations? That will be fundamental to the inquiry, if we are to establish whether there are historical problems with the SQA's structure and its relationship with ministers.
We will ask those questions. It is essential that we understand how the organisation was formed, what its relationship with ministers has been and—a more nebulous point—what type of culture existed in the organisation.
I heard that Mr Raymond Robertson was offering his services to any committee that wished to hear from him. As a former education minister, he may want to come along and bring his paperwork with him. We will consider that in the format of the inquiry and ensure that we cover all aspects of the SQA's establishment and governance. Parts of that are filtering through into the issues with which we are wrestling.
The committee will undertake an inquiry into the governance of the SQA as a matter of urgency. Our time scale for the new economy inquiry will be altered as a result. Mary Mulligan and I will agree the remit of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's inquiry to ensure that we minimise overlap. Marilyn Livingstone will be our reporter to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee as it undertakes its inquiry. Access to information regarding the establishment, background, operation and governance of the SQA will be requested of ministers and made available to the committee before we undertake any hearings on the subject. We expect to interview the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and officials and officers of the SQA about their work and issues of governance.
I thank Mary Mulligan and Brian Monteith for their attendance.