Exam Results
We move to the next item of business, which is a statement by Sam Galbraith on an independent inquiry into problems with exam results. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement. There should, therefore, be no interventions.
In the four weeks since this year's exam results were issued, serious problems—indeed, very serious problems—have emerged. There has been widespread and understandable concern and much media coverage. Many instant analyses and snap judgments have been made and much has been said about accountability.
May I once again offer my sincere apologies to all those who have been affected by what has happened. It was not of the students' making, nor was it of the teachers', schools' and colleges' making. It should not have happened.
Our first duties are to the young people—to look at the issues clearly and dispassionately on their behalf. I will begin, therefore, by stating what the Scottish Qualifications Authority has given me to understand is the position today. The last outstanding queries concerning the results of university applicants were resolved on 25 August. The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service confirmed today that 2.6 per cent more Scottish candidates now have assured university places than at the same point last year—a total of 23,694.
The SQA has completed its checks and has confirmed final grades for all of this year's higher and certificate of sixth year studies candidates. It has also confirmed final grades in all but 85 standard grade cases and has promised to complete the last of those by Friday at the latest. Schools and colleges were asked to submit all urgent appeals by 31 August. Examination of those appeals has begun.
That is the position today. After all the understandable concern and coverage of the past few weeks, everyone has the right to know how the problems arose, how they have been addressed on behalf of this year's candidates and where we go next.
However, I want first to thank education professionals from schools, colleges and universities who—at very short notice and under great pressure—worked with the SQA to address the problems that we faced a few weeks ago. I am very grateful to every one of them.
This morning, the Education, Culture and Sport Committee decided to go ahead with an inquiry into this year's exam results. I welcome that and look forward to giving evidence, because I believe that it is very important that the full and complex truth of this year's events is evaluated impartially. The committee will consider all aspects in great detail, but this afternoon I will give an account of the picture as it emerged and the way in which we tackled it.
Members will be aware that the concept of higher still was decided upon by the previous Administration in 1994. In April 1997, after consultation, it set up the Scottish Qualifications Authority, which amalgamated the Scottish Vocational Education Council—SCOTVEC—and the Scottish Examinations Board. That created a new non-departmental public body—the old word was quango—which, as members will appreciate, appoints and controls its own staff, who are not civil servants.
When higher still was being introduced, teachers made repeated representations about the difficulties that they faced in making it work in the classroom. As a result, the previous Administration and the subsequent Labour Administration each allowed a year's delay to meet teachers' concerns. The Labour Government also provided considerable additional resources—some £40 million—to address the problem. The teachers and the schools delivered for their pupils and I wish to express my thanks to them all for their considerable efforts in doing so.
The difficulties that we have addressed and are still addressing lay elsewhere. In March, I was concerned by reports that I received from schools and colleges that told me of problems with electronic transfer of information to the SQA. At my request, a senior member of the Scottish Executive's information technology directorate met the SQA, reviewed the situation and made recommendations. Also at my request, my officials followed that up by meetings with the SQA. Again, we were offered reassurances that the matter was being resolved by the SQA. My officials continued to press the SQA. Repeated assurances were given in those meetings, in written statements and in SQA board and committee papers. Let me give members some quotations from the SQA. On 10 May, it told us in writing that
"All significant internal problems have been rectified".
The next day, in a paper to one of its own committee meetings, it said that
"overall there is every reason to believe that the diet will go smoothly."
In June it became clear that the SQA was having difficulty in recruiting sufficient exam markers in some subjects. It also became clear from our contact with schools and colleges that, despite the SQA's reassurances, the authority was substantially behind schedule in collecting internal assessment data from schools and colleges. At my request, officials pursued those matters with the SQA. I ensured that I was kept fully informed.
After that, meetings between my officials and SQA staff took place on 27 June, 7 July, 14 July, 21 July, 28 July, 2 August, 4 August and 9 August—a total of eight meetings. Those were backed up by many other contacts during which our concerns were expressed repeatedly and the SQA was questioned time and again on its contingency plans. All that was in addition to continued daily contact.
It was in that context that I met the chairman and the chief executive of the SQA on 25 July. At that meeting I offered increased resources to meet any difficulties, but those were declined. The option to delay issuing results by one week was discussed. A few days later, the SQA decided not to pursue that option. At that meeting, I also received personal assurances that although some data were still missing, the matter was being addressed, that the numbers that were involved were declining rapidly and that the SQA hoped to issue a covering letter with the certificate of any candidate who had incomplete results.
On 9 August—only one day before candidates expected to open their envelopes—the SQA reassured my officials confidently that all the certificates would be issued on time and that only 1 per cent of candidates—around 1,500—would receive incomplete results. My officials were also reassured that those results were now, however, to be issued without any letter of explanation and that the missing data would be obtained quickly.
Members will not be surprised to hear that, given all the reassurances that I received during the previous weeks and months, I considered it totally unacceptable that 1,500 candidates would receive incomplete results. Because of that and because—much more worryingly—the SQA could not even tell me who those 1,500 candidates were, that day I ordered a full independent inquiry. I did that against the initial inclination of the SQA, which wanted to hold its own inquiry and pointed out—as it had done often—that it was an independent organisation.
The very next day—10 August, the day that the results came out—evidence emerged that potentially many more than 1,500 candidates had received incomplete results. What was even worse—especially in the light of the SQA's recent repeated assurances—was that I learned to my dismay that significant numbers of certificates had not been posted at all.
On 12 August, the chief executive of the SQA resigned. On Sunday 13 August, I met the chairman and senior staff from the SQA. By that time, events had rendered the stated position of the SQA untenable. The chairman recognised that; he also recognised that to move forward the SQA had to accept guidance. Therefore, at that meeting my officials and I developed with the SQA an operational plan to put right what had gone wrong. On the same day the SQA representatives and I met the secretary of the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals to discuss how best to protect the interests of young people who were applying to university. COSHEP gave an undertaking that no young person would be disadvantaged by what had happened. That followed from my statement of 11 August that
"No-one will miss out on a university place because of these problems."
We backed that up with further action to ensure that universities and colleges were given the necessary flexibility. I reiterate that, as of today, 2.6 per cent more students have been accepted for university education than had been accepted at the same time last year.
On 14 August the SQA board appointed Bill Morton as interim chief executive. Over the next few days, to address concerns about computer processing of results, the SQA carried out extensive tests on its computer systems. Those did not identify any fundamental system defects.
We expected problems across the various exam levels but—at my insistence—candidates who were seeking places at university were our first priority. The SQA therefore sought first to identify every higher or sixth year studies candidate who had assessment information missing, then to complete the information and confirm all results as quickly as possible. Within that group, university applicants had the highest priority. Similar processes were mapped out in relation to intermediate and standard grade candidates.
The validation process showed that 5,700—4 per cent—of results at higher and certificate of sixth year studies grade were incomplete. For example, in the well-publicised case of the Russian higher class, which included some native Russian speakers, the results of the class's oral assessments had not been entered, so no awards had been made. Similarly, almost 5,000—less than 1 per cent—of standard grade results were also incomplete and 4,500 intermediate courses were similarly affected. Those validation checks, followed by the confirmation of final results, represent the first stage of the SQA's response to the problems that it had not previously identified, but which were now obvious to all.
For those candidates who still have concerns, the appeals process is under way. The process of appeals is well established: schools and colleges submit evidence of candidates' coursework or prelim performance and if necessary their scripts are reviewed.
Last year there were 47,000 individual subject appeals and about 40 per cent were successful. Obviously this year appeal numbers will be higher. We have arranged—via the SQA and directors of education—to put in place detailed plans that are phased to meet candidates' most urgent needs first.
We are co-operating with directors of education to ensure that teachers will be available to serve as examiners without undue disruption to schools. To maintain confidence in the appeals process and its standards, I have arranged that the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland will provide independent monitoring. That association has played a valuable and constructive role in working with the Executive to ensure that plans for an expanded appeals system are sound.
In building on that, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland and the SQA have accepted my proposal that four senior directors of education should monitor all aspects of delivery of the appeals system. They will make sure that the system matches the plans and is carried out in a way that commands public and professional confidence. The directors will have full access to the process, including the right to make spot checks.
I have also made special arrangements for representatives of teachers to be kept involved and informed. Schools and colleges—and, more particularly, candidates—can have confidence that the process for dealing with increased numbers of appeals will be robust.
Schools and colleges submitted evidence for urgent appeals—mainly on behalf of university and college entrance candidates—by the deadline, which was yesterday. Those 6,250 appeals will be handled first and, I am assured by the SQA, completed by 20 September. Overall, the estimated 120,000 appeals will be dealt with as quickly as possible, over a period of weeks.
That, with the outcomes to which I referred earlier, is what we have done on behalf of this year's candidates. Now we must ensure that schools, colleges, candidates and candidates' families never face such problems again. The new chief executive of the SQA has already begun a full internal operational review and I have agreed to his request for one of my officials to serve on that review, which will be completed by the end of the month.
However, we all need much more reassurance than that internal exercise—however illuminating—might provide. That is why I ordered a full independent inquiry, even before candidates had received their results. That inquiry—carried out by experts on information handling, computing and management—has been out to tender. I can now tell Parliament that Deloitte Touche was appointed yesterday to conduct it. Deloitte Touche will report by 31 October and its findings will, of course, be made public.
The remit of the inquiry covers all aspects of the production of this year's results. It will consider links with schools and colleges and every aspect of data handling in the SQA. The inquiry will, of course, pay particular attention to the quality control mechanism for marking. Head teachers, college principals, directors of education and teachers who are involved in marking will be involved, as will SQA staff. We will find out exactly what went wrong.
Concerns have been expressed about marking standards and the way in which checks on those were carried out. We must not confuse marking standards with the administration of marking. The SQA acknowledges that there were flaws in marking administration. Eight cases of probationer teachers being used have been identified out of more than 7,000 markers. That should not have happened, but it has not compromised marking standards. The marking of those teachers was assessed as part of normal quality assurance procedures. Six were rated in the highest category of marker—grade A—and the other two were rated in the second highest category. Where doubts remain about individual results, the appeals system—which is strengthened this year for the extra challenge that it faces—will provide further reassurance.
Understandably, the status of the SQA has come into question. Henry McLeish and I have therefore brought forward the policy and financial management review of the SQA, which in the ordinary course of events would not have taken place until 2002. That review will address fundamental questions about the way in which the organisation is constituted and its relationship with the education department and ministers. All options will be considered, but final decisions will have to rest with Parliament.
All results for this year's higher and sixth year studies candidates are now complete. We have dealt with the problems of university entrance qualifications and we know that UCAS acceptances are already greater than they were last year. Standard grade results are all but complete and a strengthened and prioritised appeals process has begun.
The problems should, of course, never have arisen. I have described in some detail my sustained but frustrated efforts in dealing with the SQA since March. Time and again my officials and I raised specific concerns. Time and again we were offered reassurances that were worthless at the end of the day. Even in the period immediately preceding 10 August and the emergence of the full extent of the SQA's failure, a reliable response to my repeated calls for detailed information was not forthcoming. Subsequent revelations are a matter for grave concern.
Again I have apologised—in detail and in public—to the young people and their parents whose summer has been blighted by the anxiety and uncertainty that was caused by the SQA's handling of their exams and their results. I have explained to members what steps I took as the problems began to emerge and what action I am taking in their wake. I hope that I have made clear to members and to all concerned my determination that such things will never happen again.
I ask those who wish to question the minister to press their request-to-speak buttons now and remind members that the Parliament has decided that this will be a question time, not a debate.
Listening to the minister's statement, I cannot help but think that even now he does not fully appreciate the enormity of the crisis and the effect it has had on thousands of young people—not just on their summers but on their entire lives. Is the minister aware that even today, some four weeks after the exam results were due, there are young people who do not have the correct results and who therefore cannot make decisions about their immediate future?
Is the minister aware of the example of Glenrothes High School—in Henry McLeish's constituency—which only this morning received the higher still results for computing? The delay has meant that pupils have missed the 31 August deadline for urgent appeals. Is he aware that 12 pupils in that school are waiting for completed intermediate 2 results in information systems, despite the school having sent its assessment information to the SQA on six occasions? Can the minister tell us today how many young people in Scotland are in that position? Will he give us a date on which every young person at every level of examination will have in their possession a completed certificate? Those are the questions that people want to be answered.
The minister mentioned accountability. The relationship he has described today, between his department and the SQA, does not sound to me like an arm's-length relationship. It does, however, give rise to a number of questions, such as why—I hope he will answer this—over a period of six months, he accepted the SQA's assurances even though those assurances were in stark contradiction to the repeated warnings he was receiving from teachers, pupils and parents that all was not well in the SQA and that the exam results would not be delivered on time. What questions were his officials asking the SQA? What positive action was he, as the person responsible for the education system, taking the try to avert the crisis?
So that we can be sure of the minister's full co-operation with the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's inquiry, will he give the Parliament a categoric assurance that he will make available to the committee all papers, correspondence and notes of meetings and of phone calls within his department and between his department and the SQA since the start of this year, so that we can make an assessment of whether the buck stops with the SQA, with his officials or, as most people in Scotland believe, with the minister himself?
All through this episode, I awaited some constructive comments or criticism from the Opposition's education spokesperson. None was forthcoming and, again, none has been forthcoming today. We have once again heard the same litany of issues that she has raised before, all of which I have addressed in my statement.
On the issue of Glenrothes High School, staff are still accepting urgent appeals. Let me also repeat what I said in my statement. The SQA has completed its checks and confirmed final grades for all of this year's higher and certificate of sixth year studies candidates. It has also confirmed final grades in all but 85 standard grade cases and promised to complete the last of those by Friday at the latest. It is still working on the intermediate grades.
Ms Sturgeon asked me what we will make available. I have already answered a parliamentary question to the effect that we will make all the necessary material available for the committee. We want the committee to be open, fair and impartial. I hope that that impartiality will apply to all members of the committee.
I thank the minister for making his statement available in advance. The statement refers to snap judgments and accountability. When the exam shambles began to unravel, I called on the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to initiate an inquiry. I made no resignation call. Indeed, my No 1 fan, the First Minister, said:
"In fairness, even Brian Monteith, the Conservative education spokesman, said it was important that we establish the facts and take the necessary steps to put matters right."
Today, the minister has attempted to explain how he sought to put matters right; how he sought to take control of the situation and stay around to sort the mess out. Talking about exam certificates, the minister stated on 12 August:
"everything will be done on time and students will be able to get the places they're entitled to".
With his backing, the SQA announced that all discrepancies would be resolved by 18 August, but that was not achieved until 25 August, a full week later. Indeed, as we heard from Nicola Sturgeon, and as I can testify myself, there is reliable information that some pupils, in Stirling for instance, did not receive their results until 29 August—or are still waiting now.
Will the minister admit that after his promise that the exam chaos would be sorted, it worsened significantly and there were fresh revelations almost daily? Does he recall how the number affected by the higher results problem, which he initially dismissed as small and due in part to the misunderstanding of those reading the certificates, grew—after his assurances—from 1,400 to 5,000?
Is the minister aware of reports of corrected certificates still showing the same problems and the same mistakes as before? Is the minister aware that due to his failure to resolve the problem before 18 August, some students will have missed out on clearing places to which they would otherwise have been entitled?
Does the minister comprehend not only that there was chaos at the SQA, but that, as a Government minister, his crisis management was woefully short of the standards we should expect and that he is guilty of presiding over the worst education crisis in living memory? In short, does he comprehend that his handling of this education disaster was a failure? Will he accept that he has failed thousands of pupils, parents and teachers and that the only way to restore credibility in the Scottish education system is to move over, let another minister take the helm and resign?
Again, that contribution was mostly a statement of "facts" that were not true, without any specific question. There have been many scare stories and many hares have been set running. Rather foolishly, Mr Monteith followed one or two of them. He raised again the issue of certificates that were sent out, supposedly corrected, but in fact not corrected. That story was absolutely false. Mr Monteith called for my resignation, but the story was false and he should not have made a fool of himself.
What COSHEP said about clearing places was in my statement and I should not have to say it again. We made available to the universities the flexibility necessary to vary their cap by increased amounts, and we made guarantees about money. I repeat what I said in my statement: as of today, 2.6 per cent more Scottish students have achieved places at university than had done at the same time last year.
I thank the minister for his statement. I also welcome the longer time we have to put questions to him, which my party pushed for during the past few days. We are proud to have delivered that to the Parliament. Here is a thought for the SNP and the Tories: does this kind of question time not put the minister more on the spot than would some sound and fury debate in which more noise than light would be generated? I stand four square behind the decision that the inquiry be held by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.
We have heard that before.
Mr Quinan is going to hear it again. This Parliament is founded on its committees: they are paramount. Any attempt to undermine them is entirely wrong. [Interruption.]
Could we have a question please.
If I could have a moment of silence from members, I would ask a question.
We must all put this situation right. Unfortunately, there is a question mark—perhaps it is a question of perception—over the validity and the standard of the year 2000 qualifications. Rightly or wrongly, there is a public perception that there is something not quite right here. [Interruption.]
When young people go out to apply for jobs in years to come, it would be unfortunate if employers said, "You have year 2000 qualifications. Oh dear. Perhaps they are not quite right." Something that was, to steal a phrase from Mr Mike Russell, whom I thank, the gold standard of Scottish education has been—perhaps not rightly, perhaps it is only a perception—somewhat devalued.
The minister will agree that we must restore confidence in, and the standing of, these qualifications. It may be merely a case of putting a message out to employers. Does the minister accept that we have a problem? What can we do to address it?
I very much agree: there is concern and that concern is understandable. It is not, of course, helped by a number of individuals going round making wild claims based on no evidence and running down the current system, the pupils and the results they have achieved. We have to re-establish confidence. We are in the process of doing that through the various mechanisms that I have outlined.
I too welcome the information that the minister has been able to provide us with today; I look forward to his providing even more when he appears in front of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.
I would like to follow up the point Jamie Stone made. While we all have great sympathy for students who received their results late or who received incorrect results, these events have a wider implication: a shadow is being cast on the results of a number of students. I therefore ask the minister two things. First, would it be satisfactory to provide those students, teachers and schools with their scripts so that confidence in how the scripts have been marked can be reaffirmed?
Secondly, has there been any identifiable clustering of problems relating to the release of results for particular subjects? If so, has that been related to the coursework that was undertaken?
I thank the member for her comments. The appeals mechanism deals with the question of scripts that she raises. There is a set-out procedure that will be monitored closely by the directors of education. Making scripts available is a wider issue that, as the member is aware, the SQA this year decided to consult on and consider.
We have traced many reports of clustering of problems and found out that not many of them stand up to scrutiny. We were able to track down only one episode of clustering, which related to the standard grade in physical education. That case has been dealt with.
A week ago, I issued a press statement to say that I was not calling for the minister's resignation. I am not doing so because I want to ask him an important question.
Teachers are responsible through the year for assessing their pupils. Their assessments are generally pretty sound, having been discussed by the teachers of the classes and the heads of the departments, who come to their conclusions. The students then sit examinations to put a stamp on the process.
In view of what has happened in the past couple of months, would the minister be prepared to instruct the SQA to give precedence, in the 120,000 appeals that it is dealing with, to the teachers' assessments? Also, to allow pupils to get on with applying for jobs and college places, would he be prepared to allow schools to issue interim certificates based on their assessments of pupils' attainments and qualities over the year?
As I think I explained, and as will now be clear to everyone, I have absolutely no powers to instruct the SQA to do anything. After consultation, the Executive can give it directions in matters relating to the carrying out of its function as laid out in statute, but we have no powers other than that.
I will deal with the question about teachers' assessments. As Mr Harper will know, the Scottish examination system is based on external moderation, by means of an exam, of internal assessment by the teacher. The higher still has tried to extend that internal assessment. In an appeal, the teacher's assessment is the crucial part. Provided that the teacher's assessment is correct, that is what is taken as the final mark. I am sure that Mr Harper agrees that that must remain the position. If we move from that position, we devalue the appeals system. The situation will be overseen by the directors of education.
Presiding Officer, you might like to note that if the original plan for a 45-minute session had been adhered to, I would not have been able to ask a question and neither would members you will call after me.
I presume that the minister will accept automatically that if any of the detail in his statement, particularly that relating to providing information to schools and pupils, proves to be inaccurate—in other words, if it is proved that schools and pupils are still waiting for information, anecdotal evidence for which we are receiving today—he will find his position even more untenable than it is now.
Having read and listened to the statement, I note that the words "assurance" or "reassurance" occur seven times. The minister lives in a bizarre world in which, having heard the complaints, difficulties and comments from the teaching profession and others year after year, he does nothing simply because the officials he sends out come back and tell him that everything is fine. Why did he do nothing on 17 June; 7, 14, 21 and 28 July; or 2, 4 and 9 August? On each of those occasions his officials met the SQA and, clearly, the reassurances were not enough.
Would the minister like to take some advice from one of his predecessors; someone I rarely quote with approval—Brian Wilson? When he ceased to be the Scottish Office minister with responsibility for education, he said about higher still:
"I do accept this is an area in which I should have been more sceptical about the reassurances which were brought to me".
Is not the job of the Minister for Children and Education to be more sceptical? Is it not to do something, rather than be reassured? There are thousands of pupils in Scotland today who are far from reassured.
The information I provided in my statement was given as openly, fairly and honestly as I could possibly have given it. I repeat: the SQA has completed its checks and confirmed final grades for all this year's higher and CSYS candidates. It has also confirmed final grades for all but 85 standard grades; it has promised to complete the last of those by Friday.
I wish to deal with the other issue the member raised. What would be clear to most fair people from my statement are the efforts we pursued with the SQA, the questions that we asked of it and our insisting that things—albeit things over which we have limited powers—were done. We went on and on, daily, day in, day out. No one, but no one, could have done more than that and I challenge anyone to say otherwise.
I thank the minister and welcome what he said on the assurances about the appeals system and on the checks and spot checks that are to be in place. However, I am very concerned about the real issue: getting confidence back in the SQA. The only way we will do that is by getting the examination scripts back to the schools. This time, there is obviously difficulty in doing that. I hope that the minister will not wait for the SQA's own consultation—which was his reply to Mary Mulligan's question—but will seriously consider that action, to restore confidence in the SQA as soon as possible.
The other major demand raised by head teachers in my constituency is that the internal assessment system for higher still be examined, not only from the point of view of teachers' work loads, but with regard to how the results are handled between schools and the SQA.
Mary Mulligan has already addressed the matter of scripts going back to schools. The schools tell us that they are not able to cope with that. I say again that the important thing is that the normal process is followed so that the appeals mechanism remains robust and reliable and so that we have confidence in it. I agree that it is important to re-establish confidence in the system, but we do not do that by drifting out of the normal procedures.
Dr Jackson mentioned the volume of internal assessment. It is important to distinguish between higher still and the problems at the SQA. Despite the fears that many of them had, teachers taught the higher still courses, the students worked and the teachers delivered the internal assessments. The problems happened after that. The one group that delivered on higher still was the teachers.
In line with what Henry McLeish and I said back in March, we have instituted a review of the first year of higher still. That review will be carried out.
Mr Galbraith said that he felt let down by assurances given by the SQA that were not followed up. I hope that I am a fair person, but I feel let down by the minister. When, on 19 June, on behalf of the rector of Lockerbie Academy I raised issues about the administration of marking, he gave me an assurance that he would continue to monitor the situation. On the basis of what he has said today, it is clear he did not monitor the situation in the proactive way that any fair and reasonable person would have expected; all he did was get more reassurances from the SQA. Should not he have been doing something more proactive?
Reading my statement, seeing the meetings that we had and seeing what we did, most fair people would not agree with that. We pursued the issue of marking. We offered the SQA assistance. We offered it staff. We asked what else we could do on its behalf. Repeatedly we were told that it had this matter dealt with. What else were we to do? We kept pressing the issue with it and we did everything in our power to deal with the situation. I think that it is correct and fair for me to claim that we did everything possible in the circumstances.
This is not the first statement that the minister has had to make to the chamber; I recall that there was one on Scottish Opera's £3 million deficit and three on the Hampden fiasco. How can he now reassure pupils and parents that they can have any confidence when he says that he will stay and sort out the problem? Does he think that perhaps he is the problem—or is he just a jinx?
I am sure that people outside this chamber will be amazed and disappointed that a member of the SNP is making such a cheap political point out of a very serious issue. I and this Executive saved Scottish Opera and saved Hampden for the nation. We will also save the SQA.
Is the minister aware that many people in our communities have serious concerns about the practice and competence of the SQA and find it simply impossible to understand how it came to be that a body with such a huge responsibility is not directly responsible to ministers, to the Executive and to Parliament for its actions? Does he agree that we must immediately address people's concerns that somebody must be called to account for what has happened?
The minister said that he does not have the power to instruct the SQA. Does he understand that many people feel that it would be better if he had such a power—not to instruct on marking, but to set the parameters within which the SQA must operate? Will he assure me that the Executive will take steps to ensure that the flawed accountability that runs through far too many of our public bodies is challenged and that those public bodies are brought back under transparent public control and accountability?
I agree with much of what Johann Lamont says. I must point out that the SQA was set up under an act of Parliament in 1996 and, to my knowledge—although I may be wrong—no one objected to it: not the nationalists, not the Liberals and, I am pretty certain, not my party. Nobody objected to it. The SQA was set up under statute, with the powers that were given to it. We have tried to work within that structure.
Ministers cannot—I hope that members are not suggesting that they should—act outwith their powers. However, we have set up a review of the SQA, during which all options will be considered. The final decision will have to rest with this Parliament, and we shall have to consider the SQA's accountability.
Does the minister recognise the gut-wrenching anger, dismay and sense of betrayal that teachers across Scotland feel, having spent years preparing themselves, and a year preparing their pupils, for an exam that many of them had great reservations about, only to find that the body that was supposed to be in charge of the whole thing was simply not up to the job? That causes a real crisis of confidence in Scottish education, which is not the fault of the people on the ground.
Having made an issue of the appeals system in recent days, I welcome the minister's assurance about the resourcing and planning that is now being put in place to deal with the great number of appeals that is now expected. I hope that his confidence is well placed, and I hope that structures are in place that will substantially help to restore confidence.
Who decided that the concordance checks and balances that are an inherent part of the system would not be put into operation this year? Was there a deliberate decision, or was the procedure just scrubbed because there was not enough time? Is the minister convinced that the appeals procedure that has been put in place is sufficiently robust and flexible to recognise that, in the absence of concordance procedures, the appeals will be different from normal, when concordance procedures have been a prelude to the first issue of exam results?
The inquiry will deal with the concordance system, but that is a technical matter related to SQA exam results and there are no circumstances in which ministers could or would interfere with that. I hope that no one is suggesting that ministers should interfere with marking.
As for appeals, there is already an extremely robust and flexible system that I hope will deal with all the issues that the member has raised.
Will the minister assure us that, while he will of course observe the letter of the law, he will see fit to change the law if it is rotten? It appears that the misguided legislation drawn up under a previous Administration is not fitting the bill in Scotland. We have evidence of that, even before the inquiries start. We simply want an assurance that the minister has the courage to say: "This ain't working. I'm going to fix it."
Furthermore, the minister mentioned in his statement that seven probationer teachers were identified as markers, which should not have been the case. How many teachers who had not been instrumental in either constructing the new higher still courses or teaching them recently were recruited as markers without the normal training period for marking?
The member will perhaps agree that I do not lack courage, and I am certainly prepared to make the decisions that she mentions.
I will repeat what I have already said about the SQA. It was set up by the Conservatives; however, I may be wrong, but I do not remember any of the rest of us, including the SNP, objecting to it at the time.
The issue of marking will be dealt with by the independent inquiry to find out whether administrative procedures were not followed. However, there were many checks and balances; and if there were some administrative problems—and there were only administrative problems—there is no reason to doubt the actual marking of that script at that time, provided that the checks and balances were in place. I rely on and very much trust the professionalism of the teachers who carried out the marking.
It seems clear from the minister's statement that the system of school qualifications seriously failed in early August, with ministers being unaware of the seriousness of those failures and the Parliament unaware that any problems existed with the SQA. Does the minister accept that that is simply not good enough in a democracy? Although I hear his comments that no one objected to the SQA in 1996, does he agree that, four years on, he would be hard put to find anyone in Scotland who does not object to the SQA carrying on as before? Will he therefore assure us that the status quo is not an option and that, as a matter of priority, the Executive will re-establish clear lines of political accountability for this and the other quangos that run large parts of Scotland?
The status quo will not be an option on these matters, which is why we have introduced the quinquennial review. Any final decisions about that will rest with this chamber.
Why did the minister not give a more positive response to the suggestions of his own Labour colleagues Mary Mulligan and Sylvia Jackson? If the minister is unable or unwilling to instruct the SQA, will he at least ask the SQA to ensure that all candidates have the right to see their marked examination papers in order to try to restore some confidence in the assessment system? At present, there is a widespread lack of confidence in the SQA, and no confidence whatsoever in Sam Galbraith.
That matter has already been raised, and I have dealt with it. It is important that the appeals mechanism is carried out and overseen properly, and that we do not deviate from the norm. Otherwise, we will just bring the system into disrepute and further call into question the validity of these issues.
On the whole question of making scripts available, that is a wide-ranging issue on which the SQA had planned to consult. I am sure that the body will be willing to do so.
As the minister's summary of events was somewhat of the recent variety, can I ask him to cast his mind back to 1998 when teachers' warnings about higher still were ignored by him, Brian Wilson and Helen Liddell? Those warnings were not even communicated to this Parliament. It seems that there has always been secrecy, which is surely the fault of the minister. Will he simply blame the SQA? Is that not a quango that is ready for the bonfire?
Once again, I emphasise that it is important to distinguish between higher still and the problems in the SQA. On the warnings that were given and issues that were raised in 1998, I have pointed out that higher still was delayed by the previous Administration for one year, as it was by the previous Conservative Administration. We invested up to £40 million to respond to the issues that were raised.
I emphasise again that, despite their fears and worries, the teachers delivered on higher still, and I am grateful to them for doing so. They taught the courses, the students studied and the assessments were done. The problem came when they got into the SQA. It is important to remember that higher still worked, but that the SQA failed to manage the data. That is an important distinction. If the SQA and higher still are confused, we do great discredit to higher still on the basis of what happened in the SQA.
I thank the minister for his statement. However, the minister will be aware that the way in which information was presented on the certificates added to the uncertainty that young people experienced. Will the design and content of the certificates be reviewed in time for the issue of results next year?
Yes. The SQA tells me that it consulted on the design of the certificate. However, the certificate is complex and undoubtedly the SQA did not explain it clearly, which led to some confusion. Of course, there will be consultation on next year's certificate, with a view to reordering it.
I will pursue the statement that the minister said that he gave on 11 August and that he repeated today. He said that no pupil would miss out on a university place as a result of what has happened. Can he assure us that no prospective university entrant will lose a place that was offered conditionally where it has been necessary for the grades on which that offer was based to be corrected? In other words, can he assure us that nobody will lose the place that they were entitled to receive?
Secondly, how is the minister monitoring the process, which he advises us exists, under which potential university entrants' highers and sixth year studies grades were scrutinised and under which their appeals are now being prioritised? How is that process being tracked? Is it being done manually in the SQA and, if so, is the minister satisfied that in practice the SQA is able to identify all those pupils and to prioritise them? Does the process depend on the application of some software package and, if so, is it the same software package that has been deficient in recent months? The people who are still going through the process are entitled to be certain that the minister is correct in saying that the SQA can identify and prioritise all those pupils.
Mr Tosh will know that all places that are offered conditionally are kept open until the results are available, and on that basis no person should have lost out on their conditional acceptance.
On Mr Tosh's second question, there is a system in place. I understand that that system is not based on a software package that failed in the past, but that it is a manual system. We are constantly tracking the process. If I receive any further information, I will let him know.
How can the system cope with 120,000 appeals at the busy start to a new term? It does not take a brain surgeon to realise that the whole system has massive problems. What will he do for parents such as my constituent, Vic Anderson, who just does not believe his daughter's exam results? Will the minister make exam scripts available to schools where parents request them? The parents do not trust the SQA or the minister, but they trust the schools. Will the minister ensure that exam scripts are made available to the schools so that some trust is brought back into the system? Can the minister answer Mr Canavan's question?
Schools are working with pupils all the time. That is an example of a question that we have already answered on previous occasions.
Will the minister elaborate on the agreement with COSHEP? Will students get into the precise course of their choice if they now find that they have achieved the necessary grades? It is important that the students get into the correct courses. If those courses are full, will the Executive fund additional places in those courses?
On the issue raised by Johann Lamont, John McAllion, Margo MacDonald and others, will the minister recommend that the Scottish Executive undertake a more extensive review of all non-departmental public bodies? Whether we like it or not, the Scottish public hold the Executive responsible for the actions of such bodies. Will he recommend a full review of all NDPBs?
That is a major task. The member has raised an important issue. These quangos are set up at arm's length, but whatever we do, we are still held accountable and that raises big questions.
The first point that Dr Simpson raised was substantive. As I said in my statement, we have given universities flexibility on the cap—we have said that they will not be financially disadvantaged. COSHEP has told all universities that even those students who did not achieve the grades for their conditional place and entered the clearing system later should be treated as if they had entered the clearing system at the right time.
I inform members that we have spent an hour on the statement. I know that many members would still like to speak, but I must also protect what is in danger of being an uncreative debate on the creative economy. However, I will let the current debate run for another 10 minutes.
On a point of order. Presiding Officer, I understood that you undertook that all members who wished to ask questions on this matter would be allowed to do so.
I can assure the member that I said no such thing. However, I would like to fit in as many members as possible. I call Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.
On a point of order.
That will only hold up proceedings.
I understood that, in moving the business motion, Mr McCabe indicated that the Executive was prepared to amend it in order to allow all questions to be answered.
No. Because there is no timetable in the business motion, the matter is in my hands. I must strike a balance between the statement and the debate that is to follow. However, I am anxious to allow many more members to speak.
On a point of order.
I point out that every point of order takes up time from the questions.
The answers given by the minister have raised more questions than they have provided answers. We need more time to do this job. When will we have the opportunity to ask the minister more questions, particularly on whether he had powers to instruct this organisation and, if not, whether his willpower or the force of his office could have been used to make the board produce results?
Let us get on with more questions.
Will the minister accept that if too many reforms are brought in too quickly, there will be problems with co-ordination and implementation? Will he also accept that what we now require is decisive leadership in order to restore confidence in Scotland's examination system?
Yes. I agree with some of Lord James's comments. However, I remind him that it was the Conservative Government that introduced higher still. I do not know whether he was the education minister at the time, but he may well have been responsible for such matters for some of the time. It was a Conservative Government that set up the SQA in 1997.
I point out that higher still was not rushed or introduced too quickly—it has taken six years for us to reach this point. The question may be how on earth it took us so long to introduce this necessary change.
I thank the minister for his statement and some of the clarifications that he has given this afternoon. Many members have raised the point that the minister has given assurances that all the highers results are in place. However, part of the problem is that that has not yet been communicated to all the candidates who sat the exams. As recently as 11 o'clock this morning, I had a telephone call from a constituent asking when that information would be passed from the people collating the results to the telephone line that deals with candidates' inquiries. Perhaps the minister will take that back for clarification.
I also have a question on the role of the board of the SQA. This afternoon, all the minister's references have been to the SQA as a body. I would like clarification about whether the minister has held discussions with officials of the SQA, the members of the board or both. To put it bluntly, I want to know what the board was doing during this time.
I said that the checks on highers and sixth year studies have been completed and the final grades have been confirmed. The last were confirmed today. The communication of the final results to candidates is still going on.
The board, which is the body charged with the legal and statutory responsibility for running the SQA, will have to answer for itself at the inquiry. However, if it had the same difficulty that I had in obtaining information, I can understand the problems that it had.
I echo the points that others made about the powers that the minister did or did not have over the SQA. I will ask a simple question: what powers does the minister have over the SQA? What powers did he have to do anything? Was he impotent because of the way in which the SQA was set up? What powers does this Parliament have over the SQA?
A question was raised with me by one of my local head teachers, who made their views about problems in the system known not only to the local authority, but to Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools. What was the role of the HMI in this matter? It is clear from comments that have been made that inspectors were told that something was rotten in the system. What feedback did the minister receive from them on this matter?
Ministers' powers over the SQA are laid out in the Education (Scotland) Act 1996 and are contained in the corporate plan. Ministers have powers, after consulting the SQA, to give directions to the SQA regarding its functions and the discharge of those functions. Those functions are laid out in statute and relate to what the SQA does, not how it does it. That is a clear and important distinction. Any minister trying to do other than what is allowed for in the act would be acting outwith their powers. The SQA can be offered advice, it can take it, and it can ask for advice, which clearly happened once its position became untenable. The SQA has to provide us with information. That is all laid out clearly in the Education (Scotland) Act 1996.
The inspectorate has no role in the examination area of the SQA. Many of the complaints that the inspectors have received relate to higher still. That is a separate issue. Higher still was carried out and teachers got the assessments in on time. The problem came when the assessments reached the SQA.
I wish the minister to clarify some issues regarding appeals. The volume of appeals concerns many parents in my area. I welcome the fact that appeals have been prioritised and that urgent cases are being dealt with first, but even the non-urgent cases affect pupils' choice of subject in later years.
Various bodies and MSPs have proposed ideas to speed up the system, the most notable of which is that, in some way, schools could mark their own appeals. That has obvious attractions, particularly for standard grades, because schools have a good track record in predicting their pupils' results, and therefore could be relied upon to mark appeals accurately. However, as the minister knows, because I have written to him on this subject, and in particular on higher still, there are grave reservations about—
Order. You have had a long run. You may have a quick question.
I have grave reservations about maintaining standards if that were done, but we should do parents a service and remove the uncertainty over whether we are going to—[Members: "Question."] This is a question. Will the minister remove parents' uncertainty over which option might be pursued? Will the minister come to a decision quickly and inform the Parliament whether he is—[Interruption.] The question to the minister is, will he rule out or rule in the idea that schools could be used to mark their own appeals?
I am not sure that I managed to hear all that because of the noise from across the way.
It is important that the appeals mechanism is held to account and is carried out properly; otherwise, we will just discredit it. We cannot allow that to happen. The appeals system is based on the teachers' assessment, provided that they have evidence to justify that assessment. It must be considered in that way. I would not like to deviate from that; otherwise, we would corrupt the appeals system.
I shall try to speak as loudly as possible, so that the minister can hear me. I respectfully remind him that he may have inherited both the SQA and the higher still arrangements, but three years ago the Government decided to run with both of them.
In relation to the arguments surrounding the position of the SQA, would the minister agree that the problem facing us today is due partly to the failure of politicians such as himself to carry out the commitments that they made to the people of Scotland in 1996, before the general election? I remind him of the statement of his former colleague George Robertson—now Bomber George—who said that there would be a bonfire of the quangos. Does the minister agree that there should have been a bonfire of the quangos instead of the 18 per cent rise in the number of quangos that has occurred in Scotland since 1997?
Does the minister further agree with the statement from a principal teacher at Belmont Academy, in South Ayrshire, who wrote to me three days ago to say:
"I have been a teacher for 25 years. I have seen many innovations come and go. Nothing has challenged the credibility of the Scottish education system like Higher Still"?
Finally, does the minister agree that this higher still problem was not made in the Scottish Parliament, but in the Westminster Parliament by his colleagues Mr Wilson and Mrs Liddell, and that, with respect, when he goes, they should go with him?
The Scottish people will be greatly annoyed that, in this serious position, we get nothing more than a political rant once again from Mr Sheridan. I have a proud record on quangos, having halved the number of NHS trusts, and we will consider the rest sensibly. If Mr Sheridan thinks that the solution is easy, that is because he has simplistic solutions to everything, none of which ever works. Mr Sheridan's ranting is not my concern. My job is to continue to try to resolve this problem.
In the light of the fact that the minister has given us a lot of the history of this situation, will he encourage his predecessors to present themselves before the Parliament's committee of inquiry, so that they can give an account of the way in which they helped to make the system go wrong?
That is a matter for those individuals, but I presume that Mr Lang and Mr Forsyth are included in that suggestion.
In the context of the comments that he has made about the marking system, does the minister acknowledge that, when pupils are presented for exams next year, there will be more intermediate courses and advanced highers to mark? What assurances can he give that the system will improve and be able to cope with the increase in the number of courses that will have to be marked next year?
That is the important task before us and the key issue to which we have already turned our minds. It will be important to get the answers from the various inquiries that are being conducted, to determine what went wrong so that it can be put right. The clock is ticking and we have turned our minds to that issue already.
Johann Lamont and others raised the issue of the degree of accountability. I welcome the policy and management review that the minister is conducting in conjunction with Henry McLeish. As a consequence of that review, will he, jointly with his colleague, consider the appointment of a commissioner who could interface and introduce a degree of operational accountability to the affairs of the SQA?
We will review all the options. Nothing is ruled out and nothing is ruled in. That is one issue that is to be considered, and is part of the system that is used in England. Final decisions on that course of action will rest with this Parliament.
We have an unusual situation. More members want to ask questions than will fit on my monitor screen. In view of that fact, I suggest to the Minister for Parliament that we—unhappily—postpone the debate on the creative economy until a later date. [Interruption.] Order. That is for the convenience of the chamber. I hope, therefore, to run the question session until 4.45 pm. There will be no decision time, as no motions will have been put to the chamber. We will then go on to members' business. I hope that that compromise is acceptable to everybody.
I welcome the minister's answer to Richard Simpson, especially on giving flexibility to universities and on the clearing system. However, will he monitor the impact on further and higher education colleges, especially in recruitment to higher national certificate and higher national diploma courses, as the colleges' funding will follow that recruitment?
We have already given a commitment that all our reassurances to the higher education sector apply also to the further education sector and that that sector will not be financially disadvantaged.
I wish to pick up Tavish Scott's point about next year's diet of exams—we must not take our eye off that ball. I gather that there is already some slippage in the preliminary work that should be done for the 2001 process. Are people being diverted from clearing up this year's mess to ensure that we are up to the time scale for the 2001 diet?
I would also like some feedback on data handling and transfer. That is where the system seems to have gone wrong, in that the data were being produced on time by the schools and fed to the SQA, but appear to have hit some sort of barrier. The systems were not robust enough to cope. Has that been sorted out?
I was pleased to hear that extra resources will go to the appeals procedure, as that is where I hope the situation will be sorted out and credibility restored. However, there are certain things that the appeals procedure will not pick up—for example, where someone has worked very hard between the preliminary and final exams and has achieved a better result in the final exam than could have been predicted from the preliminary exam.
Sending scripts back to schools is not a good idea, but perhaps in the interests of fairness to all candidates and of restoring credibility to the system, we could organise a re-marking exercise. If teachers were asked in the right way, they might be prepared to co-operate.
Order. In fairness, I must appeal for shorter questions.
There is no basis for a re-marking exercise. The trouble lay with the administration of the marking but not, I am told, with the marking. Year after year, candidates receive better results than they deserve, if we consider their prelims. My view is, "Good luck to them."
Nora Radcliffe was correct that the problem lay in what happened to the data once they reached the SQA. We must await the final results of the inquiries before we know the answer to that. It would be wrong to do too much before we know what the problem is. However, we are determined to resolve that matter.
Further to the points that were made by Mary Mulligan, Sylvia Jackson and others, does the minister accept that times have perhaps changed? Will he ascertain what rights there are under the European convention on human rights for a youngster who has lost confidence in the SQA to have copies of his exam papers returned, so that he can have them scrutinised by an independent assessor?
That is an issue that would make a large number of lawyers a large amount of money. However, it is a serious question—Mr Gallie is correct on that. A number of serious questions relating to the European convention on human rights apply not only to this year's exams, but to exams over the years throughout the United Kingdom. We are getting a large smile from Mr McLetchie, while he thinks about the amount of money that lawyers could make from that.
I am sure that I am not the only member in the chamber who is a little confused about the minister's assurances. If he cannot, as he stated earlier, instruct the SQA, how on earth can he stand here today and offer any assurances about anything the SQA may or may not do?
As I explained in my statement—it is a pity that members do not listen—after what happened on 10 August, it became clear to the SQA that its position was no longer tenable. The SQA was therefore willing to take our advice and instructions at that stage—indeed, it had to be prepared to take our advice and it has done so. The SQA has a new evolving management and that is the basis on which we are taking matters forward.
I share the minister's comments about the sterling work that has been done by teachers in the process. The minister is right to indicate that the inquiries that will be carried out are the proper place to consider what went wrong in the administration.
Tavish Scott made the point, which other members have echoed, that we have a problem for the coming year that we must consider. Notwithstanding the proper distinction that the minister makes between the issues relating to higher still and the shambles in the SQA, is he aware of concerns over higher still's assessment requirements? Can he advise Parliament of any measures that will be taken to review the higher still assessment arrangements to reduce pressure on the system and to avoid an overload in the coming year?
That is an important question. Henry McLeish and I announced in March this year that we would review the first year's working of higher still. That review will, of course, include the assessment process.
As Hugh Henry knows, I have dealt with the problem in assessments for English and—as a result of that problem—I have allowed a delay of one further year, which is at the schools' discretion, for the introduction of higher still.
The minister has just answered the question that I was going to put to him—
As I have said, it is not compulsory to ask a question.
However, on several occasions the minister made the point that the previous Government had introduced the higher still concept. Perhaps I am being cynical, but I got the impression that the minister might have been blaming the Tories for the current fiasco.
Is the minister happy with higher still? Can he envisage the introduction of changes to the exam?
Unlike many others, I have never sought to blame anyone in this matter. That would be most inappropriate. It is a nasty feature in Scotland at the moment that, in every situation, people look for others to blame. That should not be our response—we should find out what went wrong and resolve matters.
I thought it important to point out the facts: higher still and the SQA were set up by the previous Administration. I was also fair enough to point out that none of us in the chamber, as far as I am aware, objected to that. Higher still has been approved and accepted by almost everyone in the educational establishment. There have been teething troubles with its introduction, but it is a sound and fair mechanism that blends vocational and academic qualification. It stops the waste and loss that goes on between fourth and fifth years, when some pupils are unable to take highers, and it addresses seriously the standards and lack of achievement of a large number of pupils. It is a good system, which is beginning to work well.
The minister has indicated that access to higher education in Scotland will not be compromised, but will those who want to study outside Scotland lose out as a result of the fiasco? If so, how many will lose out and what can the minister do about it?
The figure that I gave, of 2.6 per cent more entrants to university this year than last year, applies to Scotland. That figure also applies to students in English universities.
For the sake of the integrity of the Parliament, it is fundamental that we deal with the issue in a non-partisan, non-party political way. This morning and this afternoon, it has been telling that Ms McLeod and Ms Sturgeon have prejudiced the outcome of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's inquiry by calling for the resignation of a minister. We either have an inquiry or we do not. If members prejudice that inquiry, they prejudice the parliamentary process that we are involved in and by which John Swinney set so much store when he spoke.
As the member of the committee who asked this morning for the minister's Executive papers to be made available, I welcome his assurances that those papers will be available to the committee for scrutiny.
On appeals, there is great concern among students about whether the appeals mechanism will be able to cope. I understand that extra resources have been put in and that the date of 20 September is in place. However, there is particular concern among students who want to study medicine and whose applications to UCAS must be in by 15 October, that that deadline might not be met. Can the minister assure the chamber that those students will be given priority by the SQA, so that they are able to supply their applications by the deadline of 15 October?
The urgent appeals are for those with university places and the deadline is to have them dealt with by 20 September. The SQA assures me that it will be able to meet that deadline.
Over the past couple of days I have spoken to all the secondary schools in my constituency. The message from them is that the introduction of higher still is integral to some of the problems that have arisen during the past month or two. They believe that the development programme was wrong from the start, that materials for subjects were coming in late and that changes were made to assessment criteria after children had been assessed. I hope that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee will examine those issues when it conducts its inquiry.
A couple of strange anomalies came up. Head teachers reported problems with higher still English. Rothesay Academy introduced it this year; 50 pupils sat it and around 30 failed. The winner of the school's gold medal for English failed the higher still English exam. Normally, 12 pupils from Rothesay Academy would appeal, but this year 60 will do so. There is a problem with higher still and especially with the introduction of higher still English. I hope that both the Executive and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee will examine that matter.
Each time that specific problems have been raised with us, we have run those to ground. In most cases there was an explanation for the problems. We have done that and I am sure that we will be willing to do it again.
I say again that it is important to make the distinction between the matter that George Lyon raised—which is problems with the introduction of higher still—and what happened at the SQA. Higher still was introduced, the assessments took place and they were taken in. The problem came with getting the data into the machine once they had reached the SQA. That is where the problem lay—not in the schools.
I heard the minister's assurances that sufficient funds will be available to process appeals, but I am sure that the minister will agree that the number of appeals this year will be unprecedented. Can he assure us that there will be sufficient funds? I have concerns that are similar to Mrs Gillon's. I am concerned not only about medical students, but about students who want to study at Stirling University who would start their courses on 11 September. If their appeals are not processed, will they lose their places? Will the minister address that point?
The Stirling issue is not new. It has always been there and there are mechanisms for dealing with it.
From the start we have made it clear that money was not an issue and that if the SQA required resources, in whatever form, those resources would be made available. That remains the position.
The minister said in his statement that in March one of his IT officials reviewed the situation and made some recommendations. How serious were the flaws that that official found? Did he make a risk assessment of the situation? Did he say that there was any chance of the system not working in the way that it has not worked, or did he say that it would work? What action did the minister take then? Was a running check kept on the implementation of the recommendations that were made by his official? Have all those recommendations been implemented? If not, when did the minister find out that they had not been implemented? If they were implemented, does not that indicate that the review was not sufficient? Should not the alarm bells have rung much more loudly in March?
The official said that the problems were not serious and that, provided the SQA stuck to its plan, they could be dealt with. We followed up the assessment on several occasions, including at meetings at which we were assured that the necessary measures had been taken. In my statement I quoted from the written statement that we received, which indicated that all the internal problems had been dealt with.
In his statement the minister mentioned a number of reviews: the full internal operational review of the SQA; the independent inquiry by the team of experts; and the bringing forward of the quinquennial review, in which—he said—all options would be considered. There will also be two inquiries by parliamentary committees—by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, into the issuing of examination results, and by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, into the governance of the SQA. How will the results of those reviews be brought together? In particular, how will the parliamentary committee inquiries be informed of the deliberations of the other reviews? It is important that the parliamentary inquiries are as well informed as possible. I support the view of Johann Lamont, Margo MacDonald and others that, if issues relating to the accountability, transparency and legislative basis of the SQA come to light as a result of the inquiries, the Executive should propose legislative changes as a matter of urgency. Will the Executive consider doing that because, as the minister said, we want to ensure that such a shambles never happens again?
An internal inquiry is taking place and its findings will be made available to the independent inquiry that is being conducted by Deloitte Touche, so that those findings may shape its recommendations. Deloitte Touche's findings will be submitted to me and made available to the committees.
We have brought forward the quinquennial review of the SQA, which will consider various options for that body's future. The member is correct to say that any suggested changes to the SQA would have to be brought before Parliament, as they would require a change to statute. The ultimate power to decide on such changes will rest with Parliament.
Presiding Officer, I congratulate you on the wise decision that you made in the chair this afternoon.
Flattery will get you everywhere.
The minister gave us assurances about COSHEP, but COSHEP does not include English universities. Does he accept that some students will have lost places that they would otherwise have had? In that case, what has he done to date on their behalf to try to remedy that?
I do not accept that. I remind Mr Davidson of the figure that I gave for the number of students at English universities coming from Scotland. It is 2.6 per cent higher this year than it was last year.
The minister has been uncharacteristically charitable this afternoon in not wishing to apportion blame. Cynics might say that that is because his name might be top of the blame list. Will he reassure us that people who have lost their jobs because of this gigantic mess—unlike the minister, who has been more fortunate—will not be rewarded with grotesquely inflated golden handshakes?
Yes.
The last two questions will be from David McLetchie and Alex Salmond.
I would like the minister to clarify something in his statement. On page 8 he states:
"On 12th August the Chief Executive of the SQA resigned."
My recollection of press comment at the time that the announcement was made was that the chief executive was said to have left by mutual consent. As the minister will appreciate, there is a considerable difference between resigning and leaving by mutual consent. If someone resigns, they are not entitled to any compensation for the termination of their employment, but if they leave by mutual consent, a termination package may be negotiated. There were reports that £80,000 to £100,000 was paid to Mr Tuck because his departure was by mutual consent. Many people in Scotland would feel that it was inappropriate to finance that out of public money, given the catalogue of failures that the minister has described today. Can the minister clarify his statement? Did Mr Tuck resign or did he leave by mutual consent?
There is obviously a distinction in the matter that I did not quite appreciate. Mr Tuck's terms and conditions and the arrangements that he makes with the SQA are a matter not for me, but for the SQA. Mr Tuck was employed not by me, but by the SQA. Mr McLetchie should address his question to the chairman of the SQA.
A large number of questions remain unanswered, particularly questions about the appeal process and the Executive's definition of ministerial responsibility. I have two specific questions. In the minister's statement he said that now, as of this moment, all higher and sixth year studies results had been confirmed by the SQA, but under questioning he seemed to concede that some candidates might not yet be in possession of the confirmed results. Can he confirm that some pupils do not, at this moment, have their confirmed results?
In response to Mr Canavan, the minister said that he had no power of instruction over the SQA, but in response to Miss Robison he said that the new management of the SQA was taking his instruction. Which is it—instruction or no instruction; accountability or no accountability?
I am afraid that the soon-to-be-ex-leader of the nationalist party—
He is not yet the ex-leader.
The soon-to-be-ex-leader once again indulges in his barrack-room lawyer nit-picking.
He is not a lawyer.
He thinks he is. There is no inconsistency in either of those points. I said that the SQA had confirmed the results. The results are not necessarily all in the hands of the individuals concerned. The last higher result was confirmed this morning. The results are not yet all in the hands of the individuals concerned and I did not say that that was the case.
On instruction, as I made clear in my statement, after the problems came to light after 10 August I met with the SQA and it was agreed that the stated position of the SQA was untenable. The SQA was then willing to take our advice and instructions, on the basis of the position at that time. I hope that that is now clear to Mr Salmond. I thought that I had made that clear in my statement—I went out of my way to say it but I am glad to be given the opportunity to clarify both those points so that there can be no basis for further confusion or for silly political posturing by the soon-to-be-ex-leader of the nationalist party.
The statement has now run for an hour and 40 minutes, which is quite without precedent.
On a point of order. May I check whether my card is working? I had trouble with it before the recess and sent it off to be re-chipped—if that is the word—but I think that it is still not working.
We will check it and come back to you.
Thank you. If not, please may I be noted as having been present?
I will check the voting lists as well. I see that you are recorded as having voted, so your card has been successfully re-chipped.
I apologise to all those who have not been called. An hour and 40 minutes for such a session is without precedent and should not be taken as a precedent. In view of the fact that the situation arose when Parliament was in recess, it would have been irresponsible not to have the exchanges that we had this afternoon.
I now ask Henry McLeish whether he will withdraw motion S1M-1145.
I withdraw the motion.
Are we agreed?
Yes.
In that case and as there are no Parliamentary Bureau motions before us, we move to decision time. As there are no decisions to be taken, we move straight to members' business.