Scottish Qualifications Authority Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2996, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, which seeks agreement that the Scottish Qualifications Authority Bill be passed.
I rise somewhat earlier in the proceedings than might have been expected. One of the things about good co-operation between the Executive and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee is that we do not have an exciting time debating with Michael Russell during stage 3. Nevertheless, it shows how well the Executive and the committee can work together when we share a common goal, as we did in relation to this bill.
I thank everyone on the bill team, the committee members, the clerks and the other MSPs who assisted in dealing with the bill. Inevitably, as Brian Monteith outlined, there were differences of approach, but the aims of the Executive and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee have been broadly the same: to ensure that the SQA is effectively governed and that it is accountable.
The Education, Culture and Sport Committee should take credit for its consideration of the bill. It aided the passage of the bill very constructively. As my colleague said, we felt that it was important to share the draft regulations and information with the committee on a continuing basis. That way, committee members knew that we were taking on board the points that they had made. They also knew that we were genuinely reflecting on those points and taking the appropriate action.
It is important to remember why we are introducing the Scottish Qualifications Authority Bill. The Scottish Executive was determined to ensure that the SQA was put on the best possible footing for the future. No one wants to see a repeat of the previous difficulties. It is important that young people, who throughout Scotland are looking forward to starting the examination process in the near future, are confident that we have taken all the actions that are appropriate to putting the SQA on a firm footing for the future.
We wanted a streamlined and re-focused board, we wanted to create a dedicated advisory council for the SQA's stakeholders and we wanted to clarify the lines of communication between the board, the advisory council and ministers. On board reform, it is important that the smaller and more focused SQA board that is set out in the bill ensures that it concentrates on governance and the strategic direction of the SQA. Although we accept that there were concerns about the appointment of a representative of SQA staff to the board, the Executive was concerned to implement that measure appropriately and workably. This afternoon, the Executive sought to ensure that that appointment would reflect the views and interests of all SQA staff. The Scottish Executive recognises that, during the difficult times, SQA staff continued to work constructively to ensure that a service was delivered to the young people who were taking exams and who were involved in appeals. Staff also continued to work on other initiatives.
The Scottish Executive has always supported strongly the involvement of SQA staff in decision making at all levels in the SQA. We wanted to ensure that the inclusion of a staff representative did not mean that other initiatives were not progressed. Ahead of that appointment to the board, the SQA is already introducing a range of mechanisms to ensure staff involvement throughout the organisation. We welcome that.
It is important that the input of external stakeholders to the SQA's delivery of its services will be strengthened by the creation of the new advisory council. Appointments will be made to ensure balanced membership that ensures that the full range of the SQA's stakeholders from all sectors is represented. The SQA has always involved stakeholders in the development and delivery of its qualifications and awards and it will continue to do so. However, the council will provide a unique strategic forum for discussion of the different stakeholders' points of view. It will enable the board to draw directly on the experience and views of those who receive its services.
Under the regulations that will accompany the bill, and in a separate memorandum of understanding, it is established that the Scottish Executive, the board and the council will work closely together. We hope that that will be a constructive and proactive relationship, because the relationship between the board and the council will be critical for the future. I anticipate a continuous exchange of views and information between them. However, we will make it clear in the regulations that the board will have a duty to provide feedback to the council if it decides not to accept the council's advice. We hope that that will ensure that the two bodies quickly develop a clear understanding of each other's priorities and of the action that needs to be taken.
I am pleased that we have had the opportunity today to put the final parts of the bill in place. The bill is intended to ensure that the governance arrangements that are in place for the SQA will support effective delivery of its services. We need an effective, reliable and responsive SQA. That is a shared objective of the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament. It is also of critical importance to the people who rely on that organisation to deliver. I believe that the arrangements that are set out in the bill and in the subsequent regulations that we will introduce will achieve that.
I wish the young people who are about to start the examination processes every possible success and I look forward to continuing to work with the SQA to deliver for those young people.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Qualifications Authority Bill be passed.
At this stage, we are approximately 40 minutes ahead of programme.
We should be able to keep well ahead of programme. Mr McConnell is encouraging me to speak for longer than I intended—I will be happy to speak longer if Mr McConnell wants to hear me.
I will start with a reference to Mr McConnell. When he was Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs, he introduced the bill. To my mind, the one big issue that had to be considered was whether the organisation should be a non-departmental public body or an agency. Given the difficulties that had existed, my feeling was that an agency structure was more appropriate. I was not convinced otherwise by Mr McConnell's arguments, but by those of John Ward, who is the chairman of the SQA. He made the fair point that the number of changes required to make the body an agency would have been unduly disruptive. I was happy to accept John Ward's argument and to work with the present ministerial team to ensure that the bill was the best that it could be. That is not a personal comment about Jack McConnell; I would have worked with the previous ministerial team had it still been there.
In his evidence to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, the director of education for North Lanarkshire Council made an interesting comment about the SQA. He said that the structure of the SQA was not that of a normal non-departmental public body. The differences are important. The aims of restructuring the SQA are twofold. One is to ensure that the SQA never again gets into the difficulties that it got into two years ago. The second is to provide a platform for changes in the examination system, which will undoubtedly continue to be made. There was a laudable desire to ensure that the SQA is up to its current task, but there was an equally strong desire to ensure that it was up to other tasks that might fall to it as the examination system changes.
The bill ends one period for the SQA and starts another. I pay tribute to the ministers, particularly to Nicol Stephen, who has been flexible. The changes that have been made to the bill increase the likelihood that the SQA will be able to move forward and reduce the chances that the body might revert to the difficult situation that it was in. That was the aim when the process began. The bill has been improved by interaction between the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and the ministerial team. The SNP members are happy to support the bill as the start of something new.
There are big challenges for the Scottish education system and for the examination system, as has been shown in some of the debates that took place last week, for example, on the future of the standard grade exam. With a new and properly functioning SQA we should be able, by collaboration, co-operation and discussion to make changes that will benefit the real consumers, who are the young people of Scotland.
I am happy to support the bill.
I have no intention of detaining members for too long. I welcome the conclusion of the bill's progress through Parliament. The bill brings to an end what was a tragedy for the many people who were unfortunate enough to experience the disaster of the 2000 examination diet. The Parliament has spent a great deal of time examining why that diet was such a disaster and two committee reports have been produced. It is worth paying tribute not only to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, but to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, which examined the governance of the SQA. The bill is essentially about that. Although the bill was dealt with by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's work brought it about.
It was important that we considered the SQA's set up and how it was run. It was clear from analysis of the problems that the board was too large. The board contained many members who believed that they were representing interest groups rather than running the organisation as board members and putting the organisation and its customers first. It is therefore right that there should be a smaller board and a tighter management system. The Conservative group in the Parliament welcomes the bill and looks forward to the only mention of the SQA in the Parliament coming when we discuss the outcomes of examinations, their value, the reforms that might be required of assessment for higher still and the development of standard grade.
We will never know whether having a member representing staff on the previous board would have prevented the disaster that happened. However, I remind members that there were several whistleblowers at that time who tried to alert management, politicians and many others to the problems that were being faced. There were also reports that there was a bullying management style, although there is no clear evidence that that was the case. I do not believe that it is possible to say with conviction that, had there been a staff representative on the board, things would have been any different. However, it might well be that the inclusion of a staff member on the new board, with a new management culture, will make a difference. I like to think so.
Conservative members welcome the bill and look forward to its bringing about an effective SQA. We hope that the SQA will go from strength to strength and begin not only to re-establish the reputation of Scottish education in Scotland, but to export that reputation again to the wider world.
I add my thanks to everyone who has been involved in the progress of the bill and pay tribute to the willingness of ministers to acknowledge the various concerns that were highlighted by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee during the bill's passage—especially the issues of staff representation and the relationships between the advisory council, the ministers and the board.
This is a good bill and it will do an important job. The SQA is a massively important organisation in the life of our country. Its well-being and efficiency are important for young people and students of all ages in every corner of Scotland. I worked in schools for more than 30 years and recognise that what happened in 2000 was a real shaking of the foundations. First, we had to stabilise the situation which, with the help of the SQA and everyone else, we managed to do. Now we must turn to the future. The bill establishes an executive board that is leaner, thinner and more focused than the previous one.
In the course of our inquiries, I have come to realise that the SQA is a much bigger business than I ever realised when looking at it from a school's perspective. It has many organisational problems, a huge number of employees and a complex set of functions that carry with them genuine organisational difficulties. It is important that the board should be in a position to manage that complex organisation effectively even in a world in which—as Mike Russell said—the demands that are put on the organisation change constantly and will continue to change. I believe that the board that the bill establishes will be able to do that.
Perhaps the most important innovation in the bill is the creation of the advisory council, which can act as a scrutinising mechanism and a forum for discussion of proposals and policy issues. It can also offer the board considered advice, to which it must pay regard. Today's amendments clarify and codify that arrangement in a way that strengthens the bill and the organisation. The strong lines of communication that we have introduced during the progress of the bill, along with the regulations and the memorandum of understanding, will play a vital role in the future governance of the SQA. It is important that the board's decisions are informed and influenced in a way that serves the interests of everyone who comes under its umbrella—the schools, the college system and other education providers. Indeed, the board's decisions must serve the interests of the whole wider community.
I have spoken about the size of the organisation, its importance and the need for the board to manage it effectively as a business. However, it is more than a business. When one hears rumours—unfounded, I trust—that examinations such as higher Gaelic might be dropped for financial reasons, one hopes that the advisory council will play a role in bringing other criteria to bear on any such proposals. Neither Gaelic nor any other language should come under threat in that way. If it is costly to administer the Gaelic higher exam, there should be a cross-subsidy that allows it to continue. Another possibility would be to make the exam less expensive by making it less elaborate. Members will know that I constantly inveigh against a bureaucratic and overelaborate assessment system that distorts what happens in classrooms and places intolerable burdens on teachers. I still believe that that was a big contributory factor to the troubles that affected the SQA.
The role of the advisory council in overseeing, informing and monitoring the deliberations and decisions of the board will be invaluable. I hope that policy proposals and possible changes to the assessment and qualifications systems that are proposed via the education department or Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education will come before the advisory council for consideration. Today's reports of decisions relating to the return of marked papers, and the debate about how standard grade will be dealt with in future, to which Michael Russell referred, are the kind of topics that would benefit from formal consideration by the advisory council. That would allow all the stakeholders' views to be taken into consideration.
In passing the bill today, I hope that we ensure that there can be no repeat of the organisational failure that led to so much distress in diet 2000. More than that, we hope that the bill puts in place a constitutional arrangement that will allow the SQA to move forward, as Cathy Jamieson said, in its vital role in effective partnership with everyone who has an interest in the future of Scottish education. That includes the Executive, schools, colleges, pupils, parents and the whole Scottish community. Ultimately, it includes everyone in Scotland and many individuals and agencies beyond our shores that depend on the accuracy and validity of the qualifications that are awarded in Scotland. I am happy to support the bill.
Like all other members, I welcome the Scottish Qualifications Authority Bill, not least because it will enhance the qualifications system for schools, colleges, employers and, most important, our young people.
Summer 2000 may seem a long time ago to some of us, but it is still very fresh in the minds of the young people, parents and teachers who experienced the very real difficulties that were caused by the failures in the SQA. The causes of those failures are well documented. They include overly complicated systems of governance, an unwieldy board structure and a significant communications failure that permeated the organisation.
Recognising those problems, the Executive and the then Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs, Jack McConnell, moved very quickly to restore public confidence in the SQA. The entire chamber welcomes the improvement in the 2001 examination diet that was brought about through their efforts.
The bill—which, as Mike Russell said, was announced by Jack McConnell and developed by Cathy Jamieson and Nicol Stephen—represents the next stage in that process. It builds on the lessons that have been learned, deals with the issues of governance and communication that lay at the heart of the problems that were experienced and provides much-needed stability so that the SQA can move on.
First, it reforms the SQA board, making it much smaller and much more focused on the management and governance needs of the organisation. Secondly, it sets up an advisory council, involving the stakeholders, to provide advice on qualifications and education matters. Both measures deal with the institutional clutter that existed previously. The regulations and the memorandum of understanding that set out clearly the mechanisms for ensuring that the board operates effectively, meets regularly and often, and communicates properly not just with ministers, but with all stakeholders, will undoubtedly make a positive difference to communication at all levels.
In that context, the Executive's move to include in the bill provision for employee participation on the board is very welcome. We know that less-senior staff at the SQA reported problems prior to the 2000 examination diet, but the message did not get through. We also know that the staff are critical to the success of future examination diets. Our thanks to them and to all those who were involved in making the 2001 diet a success should be recorded.
I echo the minister's comments about the very positive working relationship between the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and the Executive during the passage of this bill. We had the same aim and we worked together to achieve it. The aim, ultimately, is to ensure that the SQA delivers effectively for the young people of Scotland. I hope that the chamber will support the bill.
I declare an interest as a fellow of the Educational Institute of Scotland. I would like to stress the point that Michael Russell made. The new organisation of the SQA should be able to adapt and to implement change expeditiously. There is considerable pressure for further simplification, especially of the assessment procedures for higher still. My only plea to the Executive is that it should make absolutely certain that the SQA is resourced in such a way that it can adapt to the changes that it should be making over the next couple of years.
Along with my colleagues on the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, I welcome the constructive way in which ministers and committee members engaged in the process of finding a structure that would allow the SQA to move on after a very difficult period and after the lack of public confidence that followed the 2000 diet. The reports of the two committees of the Parliament have been taken on board. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee identified governance as a central issue to be addressed. It also identified the importance of the relationship between ministers and the advisory council.
The Education, Culture and Sport Committee carried out a thorough investigation. After many thoughtful moments, the minister had the opportunity to reflect more carefully on our deliberations. He has made reasonable suggestions this afternoon and that has been welcomed by committee members and by MSPs throughout the chamber.
Reference has been made to the fantastic idea of the memoirs of a Lib Dem minister. I do not know whether that will be the thinnest book in the world or, given the paucity of Lib Dem ministers before the advent of the Scottish Parliament, the rarest book in the world, but I look forward to reading it. I hasten to add that, if Lib Dem ministers have the thinnest memoirs, Labour ministers may well not get a certificate for what we write in our ministerial memoirs if asked.
We share with most folk a commitment to have a more manageable size of board for the SQA. There is no doubt that one of the key findings of the parliamentary reports was that the board was unwieldy. We have reduced the board considerably but—and this is more important—as Jackie Baillie and others have said, we have enhanced it by including the eyes and ears of the staff who are critical in any delivery of effective service.
His acceptance was curmudgeonly, but Brian Monteith—that acolyte of new right politics who has his young man, Murdo Fraser, beside him—gave us the sense that even he was moving towards what might be called the pragmatic third way. I welcome Brian to the new Labour world.
The memorandum of understanding may be quite boring to read but it is very important in this process. A number of key points emerge from it, one of which is that it will be incumbent on the board and the advisory council to work closely and constructively with each other. That relationship will be important for the delivery of the SQA examination diet over the next few years, although it will be important for each of them to respect the boundaries within which they operate.
The way in which the board conducts its business should be transparent and open. One of the key findings of the deliberations of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and of the two parliamentary reports was the lack of transparency and openness in the past. We would welcome any work done to rectify that lack of transparency.
I would like to put on record my appreciation of the role played by other members of the committee—in particular Michael Russell, who has entered a new phase in his political development. His views have perhaps been tempered by the wisdom and wise words of his colleague Irene McGugan. The fact that Michael has actually withdrawn amendments today is a great testimony to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's success in finding a shared agenda. I should add that that first remark was facetious, in case Michael thinks that I was being serious.
Underpinning the committee's work was the idea that there would be times when we would want to get together, leave our armoury at the committee room's door and try to work in a way that would make a genuine difference to young people. That difference has been made partly through our commitment to the bill, although the real proof will come in the way in which the SQA as an organisation works with its staff and its users. Most important is its relationship with stakeholders, including staff, students, pupils and schools, which are paying for the SQA's service. If we can get that right, we hope not to repeat the tragedy of 2000—I think that it is right to call it that. Let us hope that the currency of examinations will be measurable for students at the time of future diets.
I add my thanks to those already expressed to everyone who has contributed to the passage of the bill through the Parliament. I will not fill up the time between now and 5 o'clock by repeating all those thanks.
I started my interest in politics campaigning against Nicol Stephen in the 1980s and early 1990s in Kincardine and Deeside. I will be delighted to read the details of his memoirs. If he wishes to recite them now, I will sit here and listen.
I thank Alex Johnstone for that. I have always enjoyed the campaigns in which I have managed to defeat the Conservative party candidate.
I was going to mention—in a cross-party, consensual way—the role of the Conservative party and Brian Monteith in the passage of the bill. Perhaps more important, I was going to mention the roles of Karen Gillon, convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, and Alex Neil, convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. I was also going to mention Frank McAveety but, given his remarks, I will not. All those contributions have helped ensure that the bill does what we intended it to do: to put the SQA on the best possible footing for the future and to ensure that the organisation is increasingly transparent and accountable in all that it does and that it is more responsive to its stakeholders.
I wish also to thank the SQA ministerial review group and its members for their role. They have shown how effective a constructive stakeholder group can be in relation to the responsibilities of the SQA. The new streamlined SQA board, whose functions are set out in the bill, will be better able to focus on the governance and direction of the SQA, while the creation of a new advisory council will ensure that stakeholders retain their voice at the heart of the SQA's development and delivery of its qualifications and awards.
Amendments passed this afternoon give the SQA's employees greater involvement at board level to accompany the other measures being introduced by the SQA to ensure that employees are full partners in the organisation's future. I wish to give special mention to Jackie Baillie for her efforts in that regard.
Meanwhile, other provisions in the bill will ensure that the advisory council and SQA board carry out their discussions openly and transparently in a way that, where appropriate, involves the Executive and whereby the SQA's reasons for not taking the advice of the advisory council are explained if that should be the case. I also give mention to Mike Russell for his role in those amendments and for the responsible and constructive approach that he has taken at all times in relation to the bill.
It would seem sycophantic were I to praise Ian Jenkins's role, so I will not, but it is important to respond to one of the concerns that he raised and to nail it right now. There are no plans to drop any Gaelic exam. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong and inaccurate.
The Scottish Qualifications Authority Bill seeks to focus the SQA firmly on its future. It emphasises the importance of involving stakeholders in helping set the SQA's future direction and in improving the delivery of qualifications and awards. A bill on its own is not enough. The SQA still has a great deal of hard work to do and will continue to have a great deal to do every year.
The bill is important and I am glad that we have achieved cross-party consensus on it. I believe that that sends out a powerful message, not only to the SQA and its staff but to every teacher, parent and pupil in Scotland. I therefore commend the bill to the Parliament.