Plenary, 13 Sep 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, September 13, 2001

Official Report 625KB pdf

---

Scottish Qualifications Authority

We are running ahead of ourselves, but we now come to the ministerial statement by Jack McConnell on the future of the Scottish Qualifications Authority and national qualifications. The minister will take questions at the end of the statement as usual, so there should be no interventions.

On 14 August, almost all Scotland's school exams candidates received accurate certificates of their examination results.

The fact that I am able to make that simple declaration today represents a great step forward. I know that members will join me in thanking the chairman of the Scottish Qualifications Authority, John Ward, the board, Bill Morton and all the staff at the SQA, and the teachers and staff throughout Scotland's schools, colleges and local authorities for all their hard work. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee and the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee helped to build consensus on the way forward, which has been of immense value in turning the organisation around. Nicol Stephen and the ministerial review group provided the scrutiny and transparency needed month after month.

Personally, and on behalf of members, I would also like to thank the many civil servants in our own education department who helped deliver this year's success. I want to highlight the role of Colin MacLean. Not many people would have accepted without hesitation the role of national exam co-ordinator. He was brave and committed when his experience and abilities were needed. I am sure that we are all grateful that he said yes.

However, I know that members will agree that, in reality, this year's timely delivery of accurate certificates simply represents a return to an acceptable standard of performance. Scotland's students have a right to expect that the country's exams system will provide them with a certificate for their hard work. They were let down badly last year. I am determined that they should not be let down again. That is why we have quickly completed a review of the current status of the SQA. A report of that review is published today. In my statement, I will describe briefly the outcome of the 2001 exams round, before outlining my decisions for the future.

At this time last year, more than 16,000 individual candidates had been affected by late or inaccurate certificates. Approximately 40,000 appeals had been submitted. The SQA was in total disarray and some said that the system was so fundamentally flawed that it was beyond recovery.

Thanks to the hard work of many people, on 14 August almost all Scotland's candidates received accurate certificates of their results. That might represent a significant improvement on the standards achieved before 2000. Those candidates who did not receive their certificates had immediate access to assistance from their schools and colleges, and from SQA helplines. Even better, the SQA was already aware of and working to resolve many of the queries.

The first success came on 4 August, when the SQA provided the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service with details of the results of over 19,000 university and college applicants from Scotland, three days ahead of schedule.

On 10 August, electronic statements of results were delivered to all the schools and colleges that could use them. That gave staff an early opportunity to prepare for the return of their students for the new term. Those statements were confirmed by delivery of hard copies to all schools and colleges on 13 August. The preparations by staff meant that the candidates who had queries about their results—a small minority—were able to approach their centres and the dedicated helplines that the SQA had set up for advice.

The SQA is working hard to resolve any remaining queries and to process appeals from those candidates whose performance on the day did not live up to expectations. I am pleased to report that the number of appeals received so far has fallen by 31 per cent, which indicates an encouraging confidence in the results awarded.

With the 2001 exams round almost complete, it is time to look to the future. Thanks to the efforts of the Parliament's committees, much of the work of consulting stakeholders in the process has been done and there is already consensus on the issues that need to be examined. We must reform the SQA and improve the implementation of national qualifications.

The review of the initial implementation of new national qualifications indicated that changes are required to make assessments by teachers more effective and focused, and to reduce unnecessary duplication of effort. I am determined to ensure that unnecessary administrative burdens associated with assessment are reduced. The national qualifications task group is advancing that issue as a priority. A sub-group to review English and communication is under way, as are SQA reviews of the larger uptakes.

A consultation document on radical changes to assessment models within the new qualifications will be published soon. The document will outline two models, although consultees will be free to propose any other suggestions. We will ensure that the implications of any changes are fully thought through before decisions are taken or changes implemented.

Scotland needs an effective and reliable awarding body that is independent of political interference and which delivers a rational and coherent awards system. Abolishing the SQA is not a credible option, nor is it an option to transfer the authority's functions to the Executive. It is important that the provider of Scotland's qualifications is seen to be independent of political pressures.

The priorities that led to the creation of a single national awarding body, the promotion of parity of esteem between vocational and academic qualifications and the creation of a coherent and integrated national qualifications framework remain key objectives for us all. It would therefore not be appropriate to break up the SQA.

Two main options were compared in detail. Although the transfer of the organisation to agency status would provide more direct lines of accountability and responsibility to ministers in respect of the SQA's functions, that would bring problems of its own. Neither of the Parliament's committee inquiries into the SQA recommended that the organisation's governance model be altered radically. Indeed, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee specifically rejected agency status.

The keys to successful delivery of the SQA's functions will be effective management and improved communications. The pressures and concerns experienced by all those involved even in this year's broadly successful process make it clear that a great deal remains to be done. That work is best done against a background of stability. The inevitable disruption associated with any radical change of status would be an unacceptable distraction, which could put delivery of next year's exams at risk. I do not believe that such a risk is justified when confidence in Scottish education as a whole is at stake.

Therefore, I have decided that the SQA will be retained as an Executive non-departmental public body, but only on the basis that we must have reform of the board, effective stakeholder involvement and measures to secure permanent improvements to management and organisation.

I will improve the monitoring of the SQA and put in place arrangements to improve its accountability to ministers and stakeholders. All that will require legislation, and my ministerial colleagues have agreed that I should produce detailed plans as soon as possible.

In line with the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's recommendation, the SQA board will be reduced to between seven and nine members. Members will be appointed by ministers and will be provided with appropriate induction and training. As recommended by the committee, an advisory body will be created, with representatives of all the stakeholders in Scottish education. That body will provide opinion and advice on qualifications and education matters, which will ensure that the SQA board focuses on governance and management. It will also allow key stakeholders an opportunity to give informed advice and comment to the SQA and ministers without the constraints that membership of the board and, therefore, shared statutory responsibility for its decisions, must impose.

The 2001 exams round has been successful, but there must be no complacency about the future. I will continue to monitor carefully the SQA's performance, and the Executive will work closely with the SQA to support it in improving its own effectiveness and continued successful delivery for 2002. The SQA's management statement and financial memorandum will be redrafted, making clear the relative roles and responsibilities of the SQA and the Executive, while setting clear priorities and objectives for the SQA. I share the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's concerns about the need for accurate management information, therefore I will also require a rigorous annual planning process, setting out the SQA's plans for delivering the exam round and other qualifications priorities each year, with agreed monitoring arrangements against those plans.

I have emphasised the importance of effective management. The process of appointing a new chief executive for the SQA is already under way, and we have begun the recruitment process for a chair and a number of other board members, because many of the current board are due to relinquish their posts in December. Following today's announcements, I will quickly review the appointments that are required and take action to secure stability and the new organisation that we want to be in place.

The successful delivery of results to Scotland's young people this summer showed that the system can, and will, work when it is managed effectively. However, the system is far from perfect and a great deal remains to be done to improve its effectiveness and to reduce the burdens on schools, candidates and the SQA. The package of measures that I have outlined today will provide the SQA, and the system as a whole, with the best possible opportunity to get back on track for the long term and will continue to restore confidence in the system. Scotland's students deserve nothing less than the best qualifications system that we can possibly provide, and I am convinced that the measures will help deliver that.

One year ago, the low point in the morale and reputation of our once-proud Scottish education system was reached. In August, we began the renewal that was required, but that was only a beginning. Simplifying the system and permanently improving the management are now our immediate goals. By tackling them, together, we can make our education system the envy of the world again.

I welcome the minister's statement and join him in paying tribute to all those who have been involved with the exam results this year, in particular the SQA chair, John Ward, Bill Morton, the SQA board, all the SQA staff, the teachers and staff in Scotland's schools, colleges and local authorities, and the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs and his team, who have worked very hard indeed. What I have to say in my question is not a criticism of any or all of those people.

I also pay tribute to Colin MacLean. I did not tell the minister too early on that Colin MacLean and I were at university together, in case it prejudiced the minister against him. The minister's tribute to Colin MacLean, however, highlights the problem with his statement. I do not know whether the minister will agree, but I think it is true to say that, to all intents and purposes, the SQA has been operating as an agency over the past year, and has needed to operate as an agency to fulfil its functions. It is obvious that the SQA will need to continue to operate with the type of support and direction that that implies throughout the next period of years. That is absolutely clear from page 10 of the minister's statement, which indicates an arrangement with a non-departmental public body that is far from ordinary.

I have three clear questions for the minister. First, if the close relationship has started to put things back on track, surely the lesson is that that close relationship will be necessary over a period of years to restore the necessary confidence in the Scottish exam system. The views that the committees took last year, sound as they were, have been overtaken by events, because it is the SQA's operating under agency status that has made the difference over the past year.

Secondly, if the aim of us all, as it has to be, is to restore normal service, surely we should have wide consultation on the status of the SQA, rather than an ex cathedra pronouncement. The pronouncement closes down debate on a matter that requires more discussion.

Thirdly, I accept that all reform is difficult and takes time, but surely it would be possible over a period of years to design a system that could make the SQA again the gold standard of Scottish education while paying attention to the clear difficulties of serving two different client groups, schools and colleges. The minister's statement in no way recognises the demands of those two client groups.

Will the minister confirm, first, that his statement means that the SQA's agency status is being changed to something else and that it does not mark a reversion to the status quo? Secondly, instead of closing down the options, will the minister confirm that we will have a consultation period to consider the options? Thirdly, instead of assuming that the needs of the different client groups are similar, will the minister ensure that the needs of those groups are addressed? Everybody in Scottish colleges and schools will tell him that the core of the problem—bringing together two organisations that never gelled in their ethos or work—still remains. That matter was at the heart of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's report.

I thank Mike Russell for his thanks and congratulations, which are much appreciated. I knew that Colin MacLean and Mike Russell had been at university together. I am always keen to embrace consensus in the chamber and to work closely with the Opposition and colleagues. I can assure Mike Russell that at no time did I see that as a difficulty for anybody.

I am happy to answer Mike Russell's questions directly, but also wish to make a general point. A number of factors made this year's exams round a success. The most consistent factor in the months between last autumn and this summer was that every decision was taken with the objective of delivering the certificates on 14 August accurately and on time. That meant that, at times, there were calls from Michael Russell and others to change the system. We rejected those calls, because to change the system during the year rather than ensuring that it was working could have damaged the production of certificates. Stability is as much a consideration as anything else. Quite apart from the principles involved, the organisational upheaval that would be required were the SQA to move to agency status makes that option a non-starter.

We need to keep our eye on the longer term. Michael Russell talked about restoring normal service. In my view, normal service in the Scottish examination system should be an independent awarding and certification body. We should keep that objective to the forefront of our minds, instead of taking a short-term decision based on the current situation.

There will continue to be a close relationship between the SQA and the education department, because that relationship has been of benefit over recent months. However, it needs to move on to a new level. The SQA, particularly the board of the SQA, needs to carry out to the best of its ability the responsibilities that it has been given. Consultation will take place on the proposals that I have set out, because this Parliament demands that in its procedures for scrutinising draft legislation. However, if today I did not make clear to everyone involved—to the staff of the SQA, to this Parliament and to everyone—what I see as the best way forward, I would be failing to live up to my responsibilities. I hope that Michael Russell will concede that I am averse to doing that.

The member pointed out that the SQA has to serve two different client groups. I believe that we have a body that can deliver exam certification and deal with assessment issues for both schools and colleges in Scotland. Our job is to ensure that it works better than it does at the moment.

A large number of members have indicated that they want to ask questions, so I appeal for brevity.

The Conservatives, too, welcome the minister's statement—I thank him for making an advance copy available to us. We welcome the fact that the 2001 exams round was a success and join others in paying tribute to all those involved in making that happen, including the civil servants. However, we should not forget that it was a success benchmarked against the disaster that happened the previous year, under the minister's predecessor.

The minister says that monitoring of the SQA and accountability are to be improved. That is very welcome, as there are still serious administrative difficulties within the SQA. How does the minister see improved accountability and monitoring working in the future if, as he said in his statement, the SQA must be independent of political pressures?

I welcome Murdo Fraser to the front bench and to a seat that may appeal to him. I thank him for his comments. I can think of no more able deputy for Brian Monteith.

I take the point that the member makes. It is absolutely critical that we be clear about the distinction between the role of ministers and the role of those who deliver examination awards and certificates. As we have proved over the past nine months, it is possible for us to have a close relationship with the SQA that involves our assisting that body, while not overriding its decision-making processes. We were able to deliver the certificates on 14 August without doing that. As, in the months and years ahead, the SQA gradually accepts more direct responsibility and the department adopts a less prominent role, the sort of relationship that I have described can be maintained. The SQA will be independent of political control in its duties, but political responsibility will be vested in the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs and their deputy.

I offer my thanks to all the SQA staff and civil servants who worked so hard to make the 2001 diet a success. As the father of two girls who were involved in the process, I can say that we were much relieved when the results came through.

The minister touched on an issue that is raised with me constantly in schools by teachers. They believe that the assessment process through the year acts as a barrier to delivering a successful exam diet. The minister said in his statement that there would be radical changes to that process. What will be the timing of those changes? Will they be introduced for next year's exam diet, or will there be some simplification for this year's exam diet, on which we have already embarked?

I am very pleased that George Lyon's daughters managed to receive their certificates. I wish that I had been in that position at 9 o'clock on the Tuesday morning concerned, but that is another story.

The required changes fall into three categories. First, there are changes that can be implemented immediately. Changes in both administration and process are currently being made.

Secondly, there are the reviews that will take place for individual subjects. The reviews for some of the larger subjects, such as English, maths and the science subjects, have begun and we want to ensure that all those reviews are completed by Christmas. If we can take any action in the second half of the academic year, we will do so, but the reviews will at least be complete long before the next academic year begins.

Thirdly, there is the longer-term consultation on the more radical options that need to be considered. There is serious concern throughout the system. Some people believe that a review of the current system will be enough. Many others believe that, at the end of the day, more radical options may need to be taken. A full 12-week consultation on that issue will begin before the end of this month. I hope that next Thursday afternoon the Parliament will have a chance to debate it.

I welcome the minister's statement and associate myself with the congratulations that have been offered to those who were involved in the successful delivery of the 2001 diet. In particular, I pay tribute to Anton Colella, who brought the perspective of the school to the heart of the SQA. That perspective had been very much lacking and its introduction to the SQA was long overdue.

It is vital that we build on the success of the 2001 diet. Success with the SQA should be a given, rather than an exception. The measures that the minister has outlined will go some way towards ensuring that. Our students need that kind of guarantee.

My first question follows on from George Lyon's, and concerns consultation. Given that much of what the minister has suggested will have an impact on the 2002 diet, how does he envisage the consultation taking place? What will be the timetable for that consultation and for what I assume will be a subsequent bill? Obviously, that will have an impact on the timetable of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.

My second question concerns the make-up of the board. How does the minister see the board shaping up, to ensure that all the stakeholders are involved much more effectively and that they are able to take on responsibilities and respond to the challenges of managing the SQA?

I repeat my thanks to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, under the convenership of both Karen Gillon and her predecessor Mary Mulligan, for its contribution to the consensus that we have managed to develop.

The consultation that took place as part of the committees' deliberations last autumn and much of the discussion that has taken place since then will contribute to the decision-making process that this Parliament will undertake before next summer. I am keen to discuss with Karen Gillon and Alex Neil the possibility of reducing the Executive's normal 12-week consultation period, so that we can move quickly to debate a full bill here in the chamber and elsewhere. We can build consensus around the proposals that I have outlined, and I hope that that happens. However, I also want to ensure that people have an opportunity to make appropriate comments on the proposals.

I remind the chamber that the current chair of the SQA board will relinquish his post at the end of this year. Some board members are due to relinquish their positions in December. We want to get the new board and the new arrangements up and running as quickly as possible. That will help to give people confidence in the system as we move towards the exams next spring.

In my view, all appointments to the new board will be appointments of people to a body that will manage the SQA. Those appointments will no longer be based on individual stakeholder interests and divided loyalties. The persons appointed will be responsible for the SQA and for the proper and efficient delivery of the SQA's work.

The advisory body will cover the stakeholders' interests and should have a wide membership and a wide remit. We want to consult in some depth before we produce final proposals on how to proceed with the advisory body.

As the convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, I welcome those of the minister's recommendations that are based on that committee's report. As a general rule, I recommend to the Executive that it should listen to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee as much as possible. I particularly welcome the creation of the new board and the advisory body.

I have a number of questions. First, the committee recommended that consideration should be given to the SQA's management structure below board level. Will the minister ask the new board and the existing management to reconsider that issue and to ensure that the byzantine structure that was in place is made much more efficient and effective?

Secondly, I ask the minister to examine the remuneration and terms and conditions that are being advertised for the position of chief executive. The SQA is now so important that, to attract the right person, the status and remuneration package for the chief executive should be brought into line with those for the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise or similar quangos. I worry that the right calibre of candidate might not be attracted by the advertised remuneration.

My final two points relate to the proposed legislation. Last year, the statutory duties and responsibilities of the minister and his powers over the quango were a problem—he might recall that there was some controversy over those matters. I suggest that we build into the bill legal powers for the minister, so that he can give specific directions to the SQA if and when required. I also suggest that he should build into the bill a statutory requirement for board members, when acting as such, to give primacy to the interests and priorities of the SQA and not to any other interests that they might have. That would bring matters into line with the committee's recommendations and with normal practice in the private sector.

I will consider Alex Neil's final point when we draft the bill. Let me be clear: we intend to take additional ministerial powers in the legislation, but they will not be wide-ranging ministerial powers that would allow ministers to interfere in some of the more delicate aspects of the examination system, because that would not be right and proper. We intend to take powers over matters such as the issues that were raised about the number of board meetings and the way in which the management of the board is conducted. Ministers should be able to intervene in such matters, if their intervention is required or agreed to.

The interim chief executive of the SQA and the SQA board chair are reviewing the body's management structure and are consulting my department on their review. A review committee has been established, on which a representative of my department sits. We are fully involved in the review process and will ensure that a proper new structure is put in place, although we might have to wait for the appointment of the new chief executive, to give that person a role in signing off the final structure.

I have made it clear to John Ward that I will consider positively any proposals that he might make to ensure that we get the right person in post. As Alex Neil is aware, if additional finance is required, I will not hesitate to make it available.

What further consideration has been given to the suggestion that, in cases where both the candidate and the school are dissatisfied with the outcome of an appeal, marked examination scripts should be returned to the school for checking, so that justice is done, and seen to be done?

Mr Canavan is aware of my personal sympathy for the proposal that marked examination scripts should be made available. The SQA, which has the main role in considering that matter, has been conducting a consultation exercise and is due to consider the outcome of that consultation in the near future. I know that there are strong views inside the education service against making such a facility available. However, I still take the view that in certain circumstances, returning marked scripts might help to give people confidence in the examination results. I do not want that option, or proposal, to be taken off the agenda in the immediate future. As I said, the SQA will consider the issue and I continue to hold the view that it should be considering it positively.

If the outcome of the consultation process is that it will be too difficult for scripts to be returned to schools, will the minister at least support the idea of using the information from the marking process for professional development purposes and to help teachers?

Sylvia Jackson made an excellent point. One of the lessons that must be learned from the way in which the marking process is administered and information from it utilised is that not enough teachers are learning from the marking that takes place each year. Even in the short time in which I have been closely involved with the exam process, it has become clear to me that there is a problem in that schools do not understand why their candidates fail to gain examination awards. We have already improved feedback to schools and will continue to do so as part of the revised marking arrangements.

I, too, welcome the extent to which events have moved on from this time last year. However, I remain concerned about one aspect of the SQA. I echo the minister's view that there should be stability for the SQA—that is extremely important for the morale of staff—but stability can induce atrophy. I am aware that one of the most helpful, if embarrassing, indicators of the extent of last year's deficiencies was the independent report that was procured by the Executive. Would it be appropriate for the current regime to consider the appointment of an independent auditor to examine existing management practices and procedures?

All is not well at the SQA. I am engaged in the case of a young constituent who is unable to secure his place at the University of Glasgow because, allegedly, his results were never sent from the SQA to that university. Accidents can happen in any organisation, but if the public's confidence is to be maintained, it is important that some evidence is made available to show that the current regime is as good as it can be, pending what might happen in future. The involvement of an external assessment procedure to help the SQA could be instrumental in attaining that objective.

In addition to the report that the Executive commissioned—which, I agree, was central to directing some of the improvements that were required—the new chair, John Ward, whom I appointed, brought in an initiative to secure improved independent internal audit arrangements. Yesterday, during my discussion with him, he confirmed that those arrangements will continue as long as he is in post and through the transitional phase. We expect those arrangements to continue beyond that. A proper, robust internal audit arrangement within the SQA for both procedures and finances is critical. I know that John Ward is personally committed to that arrangement.

I thank the minister for his statement on the SQA and I congratulate all those who are involved in education—particularly teachers—on the delivery of the 2001 diet.

I want to flag up the changes that led up to last year's tragedy, because the two organisations involved did not work together. That happened because there was a failure to consider the ethos of each organisation. It was clear to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee that the trade unions and the people who work in the SQA were not listened to, although they were clear—as were teachers—that the organisations were not working well together. Communication in the delivery of the diet was a problem, as was communication within the organisation. Will the minister ensure that all those who work within the SQA are involved in the consultations about the changes within the organisation?

What is the time scale for the review of national qualifications? The Education, Culture and Sport Committee heard a fair amount about young people in colleges feeling that they had been left out and there is a fair amount of difference between how schools and colleges are treated. I am interested in hearing the minister's response to those questions.

There have been significant improvements in the arrangements for colleges, even in recent weeks. Over the past 10 months, I have been conscious of the fact that the focus was predominantly on schools and that the colleges were feeling a bit left behind. I know that the SQA is in the process of establishing a new further education advisory forum, which will be chaired by a college principal and will meet for the first time in October. The SQA has also followed up the successful secondment of Anton Colella—to which Karen Gillon referred earlier—with the secondment of John Young from the Scottish further education unit, to provide internal expertise on the further education perspective.

A number of other bodies and arrangements are being put in place that will secure improvements to the delivery of results not only to colleges, but to other bodies. Sometimes, we forget that the SQA has a working relationship not only with schools and colleges, but with other client groups such as employers, training providers and higher education institutions. We need to ensure that all those different stakeholders have the necessary input.

The SQA's current board members and I are committed to ensuring that those who have a stake in the organisation, including those who work for it, are listened to. The ministerial review group that we set up last year had a key role in ensuring that those views were taken on board and that the new advisory body will do the same.

Will the minister give an undertaking that the remit of the proposed advisory body that he announced today will include an examination of higher still? Many of the representations that I received from teachers in my constituency related to the ability of higher still to deliver. Will he also undertake to examine any outstanding cases in which individuals are still seeking resolution from the SQA for last year's results?

I have some reservations about referring to individual cases from last year, although individual cases that require attention from the SQA and those who have responsibility for them will always come to light. We made it clear that some final decisions on people's awards would be made during the appeals review and that that was an appropriate conclusion to a difficult time for everybody. Clearly, there will always be individuals who are caught up in an administrative process that can leave them with longer-term difficulties. If administrative matters can be resolved to deal with some longer-term problems—in particular, for some college students—I am sure that the SQA will try to deal with that and my department will give help, if that is appropriate.

On the review of higher still, a national qualifications task force is reviewing the national qualifications, including higher still. It is my view that the implementation of all those qualifications needs to be reviewed as a matter of some urgency. The new advisory bodies are unlikely to be in place before the middle of next year at the earliest, so it is more appropriate for the task force to take forward the agenda as a matter of urgency in this academic session. However, in the longer term, I hope that the advisory body will keep a general watching eye on a range of assessment matters, not only the SQA's performance on exam certification.

I welcome the minister's statement. Will he give us further information about the impact of this year's appeals? Last year, the problem with appeals was one of the key concerns of many members. What is the present position? Can we feel confident that that position will continue for the foreseeable future?

We do not yet have figures for the standard grade appeals, which were due only recently. However, the higher appeals—including the urgent appeals—show a much better picture than the previous year. In a normal year, the number of appeals is about 20,000. We believe that the figure is in the low 20,000s this year. That is a significant reduction on the 40,000 in the year 2000. That shows that there is a renewal of confidence in the system and in the results. The certificates were delivered on time, but—equally, if not more, important—people also believe the results on their certificates.

It might be helpful for the member to know some of the up-to-date figures. This time last year, there were more than 4,000 individual appeals for higher level mathematics; this year, the figure was 1,755. For physics, there were more than 2,200 appeals last year; this year, the figure is down to 670. The fact that young students in Scotland believe the results on their certificates is the most important indicator that we have turned a corner that we needed to turn.

The minister looks relaxed and confident occupying the First Minister's seat. Perhaps he aspires to fill it on a permanent basis.

I want to pursue Dennis Canavan's point about the accountability of the SQA to the presenting centres—the schools. I understand the minister's response that the SQA is reluctant to return marked scripts to schools because that might achieve nothing. However, if by some kind of protocol the return of marked scripts to schools facilitated dialogue between the presenting centres and the appeals panels, the detailed scrutiny of the submitted appeals material might provide a substantive safety net that would improve schools' and pupils' confidence in the appeals process. I am sure that the minister has had professional experience of how there can be discordant outcomes not only from examinations but, on occasion, from the appeals process.

I am sure that the SQA will examine the range of possibilities when it examines the outcome of its consultation on that issue. It is right and proper that it should do so. I made my position clear in answer to Mr Canavan's question. I do not underestimate the difficulties that the return of scripts might involve for marker recruitment and other issues, but I hope that it is being considered positively. However, I will say one thing: last year, access to marked scripts was very important because people had a serious crisis of confidence in the results that they had received. Although the pressure might now be off, the issue remains and must be addressed.

There are many other more important issues. Sylvia Jackson made an important point on how teachers can learn from the feedback that they receive on their marking of candidates' examination scripts. In the past four weeks, the real grief that I have come across about this year's results is from young people who believed that they had attained a certain standard but discovered, when they sat the final examination, that the course that they had been pursuing in their school had perhaps not been as complete as it should have been. A small minority of teachers need to learn from the results year on year. If we can get that right, we will tackle the situation in which people have high expectations that are squashed when they receive their certificate.

Further to Mr McAveety's question on the appeals system, my constituents have identified problems with the urgent appeals system, which produces results that are too late because they are beyond the deadline that universities have set for conditional acceptances. Does the minister expect that, in future years, the SQA will work with Scottish universities to match up those dates, so that young people who achieve the required levels are able to take up their university courses?

There are a number of issues about entrance to university. Long before I was a member of the Scottish Parliament, when I was at Stirling University, I was involved in the problem of the difference in starting dates for the new academic terms. A range of issues is involved, which includes the entrance procedures of Glasgow University and some of our more traditional institutions, which differ slightly from those of the majority of universities. I hope that when this year's examination round is finally complete, Wendy Alexander and I will be able to discuss those important issues in some detail.

I am certain that further improvements can be made and I hope that the problems can be resolved between the SQA and the universities without direct ministerial involvement. I strongly urge any individual candidates who are having problems to follow the age-old procedures that have tended to resolve such matters. They should contact the university to try to get special cases arranged for them.

As part of his reforms of the SQA, does the minister plan to ensure that a truly independent person or body will exist whose task it will be to ensure that, year by year, a consistent standard is achieved so that an exam pass indicates the same sort of ability and application year by year? There might be pressures from politicians, teachers or the SQA to have more people passing exams. That could lead to pressures to reduce standards. I hope that the minister will ensure that there is a proper system to resist such pressures.

Donald Gorrie has made that point on a number of occasions in this chamber and, I am sure, elsewhere. It is a good point. When we are trying to drive up standards and ensure that more people achieve qualifications of a higher level, it is difficult to avoid the accusation that examinations might be becoming easier so that more people pass them. If politicians were interfering with examinations in that sort of way, or if those who are responsible for examinations were inadvertently creating those conditions, that would indeed be a farce—one that I would obviously want to avoid.

Donald Gorrie makes a specific suggestion for a body that might look into this issue, even from time to time. It is possible that that will be one of the functions of the new advisory body. In our consultations, I will certainly want to consider such a function. Associated with the new body, that particular function—being performed perhaps every three years, or perhaps relating to specific subjects—could mean that independent consideration was available to reassure everybody throughout Scotland that politicians were not changing results to get good headlines.

I join other members—most of those who have spoken, I think—in thanking the minister and his team, the staff at the SQA, and the teachers and examiners. I think that most of the thanks were genuine. I did not think that the minister's statement was an ex-cathedra pronouncement, and I suspect that it would take a better man than Mike Russell to raise the minister to the episcopacy. A lot of work that was done to prepare for what it was thought would happen with this diet has been rendered redundant. Again, I thank the minister for that.

Will the minister look seriously at Dennis Canavan's point on the return of scripts and materials? Will he make that a priority in bolstering the return of confidence in the examination system? I am pleased that such a return of confidence was evidenced by what the minister said about maths appeals. Either now or later, will the minister give details on the measures of externality that will be brought into the structures of the SQA and into the oversight of the SQA so that, again, returning confidence might be bolstered?

I represent a constituency that has one of the highest graduate populations in Scotland. I was therefore especially delighted with what happened with this diet—as I am sure my predecessor would have been.

I hope that the advisory body—and perhaps some of the other measures that we have put in place in the system—will provide the sort of external scrutiny that we require. We do not see any need to continue with the ministerial review group, but the lessons learned by that group were clear—external scrutiny and transparency played a key role.

I have already made my position clear on returning marked scripts and the difficulties and the benefits that that might bring. I hope that the SQA will make a decision on that in the near future.

The Education, Culture and Sport Committee report drew attention to the difficulties that were caused by split sites, with workers being located in up to five different places. In light of the minister's decision on the status of the SQA, what investment is being committed to overcoming those and related problems? Will that support be sustained and guaranteed?

One of the more amusing incidents of the summer involved the SQA computer back in July when, after I had wandered round the country for six months saying, "You never know what might happen—the computer might blow up," the computer, of course, blew up. We were faced with what could have been a difficulty, but I am thankful that the computer had not yet been installed so we did not lose any information. One of the reasons for ensuring that there were proper back-up facilities was to deal with the problem of split sites and to ensure that the electronic transfer of data between those sites was secure.

The issue of split sites remains and I do not think that that situation can be efficient for the SQA. I will ensure that the board considers that matter urgently. It must consider its location or locations, and it must choose the right location or locations for the longer term. We will then clearly need to discuss with the board the financial and managerial implications of that. The issue remains; it will not go away.