Scottish Qualifications Authority
We move to the main debate, which is on motion S1M-1446, in the name of Alex Neil, on behalf of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, on the inquiries into the SQA. I call Mary Mulligan, who is the convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, to open the debate.
It is unfortunate that this debate follows the one that we have just had, because this debate could have been very constructive. I hope that we can move on from the discussions of the past hour.
To change the tenor, I will begin by thanking the people without whose help the report would never have been as complete or as comprehensive as it is. First, I thank the clerks to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, who could have been forgiven for thinking that, because we dealt with legislation last year, this year would be quieter. That was not to be, and I am sure that committee members want me to thank Martin Verity, David McLaren, Ian Cowan and, latterly, Peter Reid. I also thank Sue Morris and Camilla Kidner from the Scottish Parliament information centre for their patience and forbearance, and I thank the adviser to the committee, Hamish Long, who is here this morning. His great knowledge and understanding of the exam system was a big help. Finally, I thank Professor Andrew McGettrick—special adviser on information technology—who helped us tremendously with IT issues and gave our report the breadth that it needed.
On 6 September 2000, the Education, Culture and Sport Committee agreed to my proposal to hold an inquiry into why the process of issuing exam results on 10 August had gone so badly wrong. The agreed remit was:
"to gather information on the remit and role of the Scottish Qualifications Authority in relation to the issuing of . . . Certificates . . .
to review the impact on school pupils, and on their future prospects . . .
to identify the causes of the difficulties encountered this year, including:
- aspects of the marking process
- problems within the administration of SQA
- the implementation of Higher Still
to examine the role of the Executive and its relationship with SQA . . .
to make recommendations on how such difficulties may be avoided in future".
The remit was very clear about avoiding the question of governance of the SQA. It was agreed that, because that fell within the remit of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, that committee would hold its own inquiry into governance of the SQA. Members of that committee will talk about its findings during the debate.
The Education, Culture and Sport Committee took oral and written evidence from a wide variety of individuals and organisations, including the Minister for Children and Education and former and present officials and board members of the SQA. I should mention the young people who gave evidence when the committee visited Hamilton. They put their case across clearly and concisely and assisted us greatly in understanding how young people had been affected. I also thank South Lanarkshire Council for its assistance during that visit.
As most people now know, the SQA is a non-departmental public body that was established by the Education (Scotland) Act 1996. It was formed by merging the Scottish Examination Board and the Scottish Vocational Education Council and its establishment was directly linked to the development of higher still.
The committee heard evidence from pupils who received wrong results or no results at all. We heard how the continuing confusion at the SQA led to anxiety, not only for those students, but for all students. We heard grave concerns about the young people who were going on to further or higher education. Although the figures in paragraph 64 of the report show how many young people gained entry to their first or second choice of institutions, we do not have full information on what courses they are taking, or on how content students who went through clearing are. However, it is possible to say that overall numbers of students who gained places were up on the previous year. I acknowledge that the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service and the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals did everything they could do to assist students at that difficult time.
There were problems for students who were staying on at school when it came to deciding this year's courses. The committee was also concerned about students moving on to employment, but we were unable to identify any such students who had problems at the time of the inquiry, so we could not pursue that matter further. Earlier difficulties appeared to have been dealt with.
So what are the problems that the report identifies? The first is the problem with registration of candidates, which had the knock-on effect of the SQA recruiting too few markers too late. During the early stages of our inquiry, there was some concern about the standard of marking. However, the committee was unable to find any substantial evidence that marking standards had suffered. A major feature of the new higher still exam was the use of unit assessments. In evidence, many comments were made that questioned the level of competence at which the assessments were set.
Can Mary Mulligan assure members that every marker was qualified in the subject they were marking?
Six people who were probationers marked papers—I think it was six but I am sure members will correct me if I am wrong. That practice had not previously been used but, when they were reviewed, those markers' standards were found to be among the best. We have no doubts about the standard of marking.
The fact that the unit assessments were a hurdle and did not contribute to the final exam mark was also questioned, as was the passing on of results to the SQA, which added to the burden of data that it had to deal with. We found that there was still general support for higher still, but great dissatisfaction that neither the higher still development unit nor HM inspectors of schools had responded to the concerns that were raised. The Executive is reviewing the development of higher still—we await its findings with interest.
I turn now to the SQA itself. Although it was set up in 1996, the true merger of the SEB and SCOTVEC did not really happen. The operation unit was significantly understaffed and no one in the unit, including the head of the unit, was qualified in data management or information technology. Staff rarely took up training opportunities, because they were far too busy. Many staff were working very long hours to try to deal with the problems that they faced, but they lacked the guidance that was needed. I will not comment on the SQA board—my colleagues on the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee will do that—except to say that we were very surprised and disappointed at how relaxed board members appeared to be while the crisis was building.
In considering the relationship between the Executive and the SQA, we must remember that the SQA is an NDPB. The committee has not sought to change the arm's-length nature of that relationship. However, we felt that it was important to look at that relationship and at when and how any intervention could or should have been made. In March 2000, the relationship began to change because of concerns that were raised by teachers and others. In June 2000, the relationship changed further—Scottish Executive officials described it as much more interventionist. During all that time the SQA continued to reassure everybody concerned that everything would be okay.
The committee heard evidence about only two points at which the Minister for Children and Education might have intervened. They have been referred to, but I will repeat them. The first is the date on which the results were issued and the second is the handling of the information after 10 August. We must accept, however, that even if he had intervened, that would not have prevented the debacle on 10 August.
There has been much discussion about the committees' requests to see civil service advice to ministers. The convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and I arrived at a settlement on the questions that committee members wanted to be answered by civil servants, which was that both conveners would be given sight of the relevant papers. If Parliament wants to go further than that, Parliament will have to debate it. That procedure allowed the committees to obtain the information that was needed to complete our reports.
Annexe 1 of the report deals with information systems and technology, on which a number of specific recommendations arise. The evidence to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee suggested that the basic principles that are associated with the development of a computer system were not employed. The committee therefore recommends an independent, external investigation of the SQA software to consider any so far unidentified problems that could have contributed to the events of diet 2000. We also recommend that the system should be checked to ensure that it is millennium compliant. We were surprised to hear that that had not been done.
I will leave others to enlarge on specific recommendations but, in general, we suggest that no individual is responsible for the problems that occurred. However, there are those who must take some blame. Officials and board members of the SQA made mistakes and the lack of openness and accountability meant that those mistakes went undetected. The difficulties of introducing the new exam system were ignored and were not dealt with by HMI or the HSDU. The committee recognises that a number of changes to personnel and structures have already been made and we hope that the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs will act on the other recommendations in our report.
The Education, Culture and Sport Committee discussed the release of exam scripts and took a considerable time to arrive at a conclusion. I reject out of hand Brian Monteith's assertion that the committee divided only on party lines. On the release of exam scripts in particular, that was not the case. The committee agreed that exam scripts should be released to try to re-establish confidence in this year's results, but we should await the outcome of the review before deciding on action for future years. I have noted recent discussions on that, and I look forward to the minister making some announcements—maybe even today.
As a committee, we are very sorry for all those who were affected by the exam chaos in 2000—particularly pupils, parents and teachers. We will start to make amends only by ensuring that that chaos is not repeated. The committee worked hard to gather the information that informed our recommendations. It is amazing that there are 56 recommendations that members from across the political parties were able to sign up to, especially when we consider the membership of the committee. Do not worry—I am not looking at any member in particular. The unity of the members is the report's strength. If the report and its recommendations are acted on, we can ensure—and, as the First Minister said this morning, we must ensure—that the chaos of 2000 never happens again.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the 11th Report 2000 by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee Exam Results Inquiry (SP Paper 234) and the 6th Report 2000 of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee Inquiry into the Governance of the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SP Paper 232) and urges the Scottish Executive to give urgent consideration to their findings and recommendations.
I call Jack McConnell to open for the Executive.
All of us have moments in our lives that are so significant we can always remember the details. For many, receiving examination results is such a moment. It is a traumatic time and an event that affects life choices and opportunities. I recall the three weeks I waited in 1977 when I was not sure that my higher grades had made the standard set for my chosen university course. I remember opening the envelope and the feeling of a future in doubt.
I spent nine years as a teacher and, every August, I would check carefully how those I had taught had performed—pleased for those who had seen their hard work rewarded, and disappointed when an expected grade had not been realised. I have felt those emotions even more strongly as a parent watching both my daughter and my son open those envelopes and discover their results. Those occasions are stressful and significant enough, but to see those emotions and doubts multiplied by the chaos and uncertainty of this year's exam results was intolerable, and it must not happen again.
The focus of the previous debate was past events; now we need to look to the future. The committee reports are a vital part of examining what went wrong and learning lessons—lessons that I want to act on. I am pleased to add my support to the motion and to confirm that we will indeed give urgent consideration to the recommendations. Such wide-ranging reports deserve serious and in-depth consideration, and we will formally respond to Parliament at the earliest opportunity.
The Education, Culture and Sport Committee report rightly states:
"Measures must be taken to ensure that pupils should never have to face such an experience again and that the credibility of the Scottish examination system is restored".
That is my overriding goal and the top priority is to ensure that next year's exam results are accurate and on time. Delivering next year's exams successfully must also be the key priority of the SQA, and its achievement needs to be supported by everyone in the Scottish education system. Diet 2001 is already under way; for candidates, the dates of their summer exams are already looming large. Those dates are also at the forefront of my mind and our decisions on the recommendations must, and will, be designed to ensure that diet 2001 is delivered successfully and that confidence in Scotland's examination system is restored.
The SQA's role is not confined solely to schools. The SQA occupies a crucial position in relation to vocational qualifications, skills and lifelong learning. I know that further education colleges, training providers and employers are concerned that discussion of the exams problems centres only on schools, but I can give an assurance today that any changes to exams and the new national qualifications will take account of the needs of all sectors.
The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee recommended sweeping changes to the SQA board. I have already replaced the chair of the SQA and reduced SQA board membership. The committee was particularly critical of the performance management arrangements. To address that criticism, the SQA will now provide me with monthly reports, and the SQA has already provided a compliance statement setting out the key actions that it will take towards diet 2001. Progress will be monitored by the review group chaired by the Deputy Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs. I am pleased to announce that that group, which includes parents, pupils and teachers, will meet for the first time on 19 December.
The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee report contained a number of recommendations on future governance arrangements. The policy and financial management review—the quinquennial review—which will begin in earnest in January, will examine all those options.
The measures that Jack McConnell has described are welcomed by, I believe, all members. Has he seen a report in one of today's newspapers in which the SQA states that, in respect of the vital process of registration, it is perhaps one month behind where it would have been had that process been correct? Has he received particular reports about that? Does he believe that the measures that he has thus far announced will, in themselves, be sufficient to solve the serious registration problems that were the subject of detailed comment in the report of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee?
It would be wrong and complacent for us to suggest that anything we do at this stage will be sufficient. That is why we have to have a review group and regular reports. We need to be open and transparent in our reporting to Parliament, so that MSPs will be involved in that monitoring. We will do that. When the review group meets for the first time next Tuesday, the information that school registrations are behind schedule will be one of the items on its agenda. I do not want to attach any blame for that situation to any part of the organisation or the system. We have to get at the truth and ensure that, where a problem needs to be corrected, it can be corrected and corrected quickly.
The report of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee contains 56 recommendations. I have already acted on many of those recommendations. The SQA will review markers' fees. I know how arduous marking can be, even in a normal year. I also know that teachers do not mark simply because of the money; they are involved because they recognise that marking is important. We appreciate the efforts of all involved, especially last year. It is time that markers received the pay that they deserve, and the Scottish Executive will fund the SQA to ensure that markers are fairly rewarded.
The Education, Culture and Sport Committee is critical of elements of the new national qualifications. We are carrying out a general review of the new qualifications, which will seek the views of teachers, parents and students. It will be published before the end of the academic year.
Already data returns to the SQA are being simplified and internal assessment will be improved. I am writing to schools and colleges to explain what is being done; a copy will be placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre this week.
I am establishing a new group—the national qualifications steering group—which will merge the roles of the higher still implementation group and the higher still liaison group, allowing all those with an interest to have an important voice in the process of developing qualifications in Scotland.
I agree with the Education, Culture and Sport Committee that the Scottish qualifications certificate is too complicated. The SQA will adjust the certificate for diet 2001 so that it is simpler to understand for students, parents, centres and employers. However, the core skills element of the certificate should not be entirely removed. Employers strongly advocated the inclusion of core skills and, for candidates moving directly into employment, they will provide a valuable record of competences.
Another key area of simplification is the process by which centres submit internal assessment data to the SQA. I have listened carefully to the ideas that have been presented on that issue and agreement has been reached on proposals for implementing a simpler system for submitting internal assessment data to the SQA. The SQA is currently carrying out a feasibility study to ensure that the new system works, with a view to introducing the system for the exams next summer.
The Education, Culture and Sport Committee also calls for a review of the role and accountability of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools. I announced on 23 November that I would reform the inspectorate by establishing an executive agency to focus on inspection and reporting. In addition, there will continue to be a role for officials with professional education experience in contributing to the internal advice that I receive. That is an important step and I am pleased that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's recommendation supports that decision.
Concerns continue to be voiced about the appeals process; I want to address that issue specifically. The Association of Directors of Education in Scotland played an important role in overseeing the appeals process this year, to ensure that there was independent quality assurance of that system. I have just received its report and a copy was sent to the convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee last night and placed in the Parliament's information centre this morning. Overall, ADES concluded:
"Appeal teams carried out their duties efficiently and to the established performance standards. On the whole the appeals process by appeals teams was thorough, rigorous and consistent."
However, I am conscious that the questions that candidates and centres have about their appeals are continuing to cause uncertainty and in some cases distress. I want everyone—especially the candidates—to have confidence in the final results for this year.
The Education, Culture and Sport Committee has called for the scripts of all candidates whose appeals have been declined to be returned to centres along with the assessors' reports. However, that would not correct any outstanding wrong. In order to restore confidence in the appeals process, I am convinced that independent verification of those appeals, where there are significant concerns, is required. Therefore, with the agreement of the SQA, I can announce that we will establish an independent panel of subject experts, made up of experienced teachers and markers, to review cases that continue to give grounds for concern. Directors of education and college principals will be asked to identify such cases.
Those higher appeals will then be scrutinised by the subject experts, who will either confirm or query the outcome of the appeal. In both cases, the experts will produce a report for the centre explaining their decision. If the subject experts disagree with the initial appeal result, the case will be independently adjudicated. That is a vital step if we want candidates, their parents and centres to believe in this year's results.
I am encouraged by the minister's comments, particularly given the number of relevant cases from my constituency that I have raised with him. Has he any idea how many cases are likely to be reviewed as a result of the mechanism that he is announcing? I realise that it is dependent on advice from college principals and directors of education.
I do not. I hope that a sensible approach to the matter will be taken. There will be cases in which people are genuinely disappointed and where the results matter to them personally, although the outcome is not life threatening. Members have identified several cases in which an individual young student's choice of course, university or college, or their future employment prospects have been affected by a result that the student believes to be wrong. On some occasions, the student will be wrong. However, we must reassure them either that we can correct the wrong if there is one, or that the result that they have is the final and correct one. I want to ensure that the directors of education identify those extreme groups of cases, so that we can deal with them and give everyone confidence in the final outcome of the system. We want to ensure that no one's prospects are affected as a result.
That procedure will supply important information for teachers as they provide their estimates of grades in future years. The need for feedback is not unique to this year. We will build on this year's new arrangement, in consultation with education authorities, colleges and teachers, to develop longer-term feedback arrangements.
I want to move forward and the SQA has already stated that its priority must be next year's exams. The SQA wanted diet 2000 to be resolved on 31 December. However, the further examination of appeals will inevitably mean that the final end point of this year's summer exams will be later. I am sure that all members will agree that the extra effort is entirely justified.
I am about to conclude.
For hundreds of years, Scots have taken pride in their education system. That pride has suffered a blow this year. However, there is much that is good throughout our system. The professionalism of our teachers, the commitment of parents and the political will of MSPs of all parties can work together to restore pride and confidence in the system.
Today's debate should herald a watershed in this affair. The committee reports rightly concentrate on what went wrong and who was responsible. However, we—I emphasise the word "we", because exams must go beyond party politics—need to move into a new phase. By our working together, diet 2001 will be delivered, and I hope that we can agree that from today we will join in that national effort to deliver the qualifications. As the real new millennium approaches, let us ensure that we are giving Scotland's young people our very best. They deserve nothing less.
I regret the fact that we could not have a full three-hour debate today. That would have been important for the many members who want to speak and the many views that should be heard. I regret the fact that the Executive insisted on coupling the issue with the earlier debate instead of accepting the SNP offer of using time tomorrow. Having said that, I agree with Mary Mulligan that it is important to separate the issues.
We have already debated the issue of ministerial responsibility this morning. In this debate, we can take a much broader view of the unanimous recommendations of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. It is important to note that there was no recommendation in the printed report that was not unanimous. There was division on one recommendation, but the printed report presents a unanimous view of what the committee said. That is vital because it shows the huge consensus on the issue. The committee report is a model of its kind in many ways, in particular because it takes a minority position into the body of the report, allows it to be presented, indicates how that was voted on and takes the view that a diversity of opinion on some issues does not jeopardise the unanimity of view on many others. I hope that other committees will take that stance.
Like Mary Mulligan, I pay tribute to the range of people involved in the report. At times, taking part in this detailed inquiry was a rather surreal experience—I found myself enjoying debating with Johann Lamont and agreeing with Ken Macintosh and his obsessions with grammar. At times, the entire committee was in agreement and pursued questions and points as a single entity. That is a great encouragement to the Scottish Parliament, just as today's debate and the scrutiny of the SQA should be a great encouragement. I pay tribute to the clerks, who worked very hard and to the advisers, particularly Dr Hamish Long, who is sitting in the visitors gallery. Dr Long's voluminous knowledge of Scottish examination procedure was absolutely essential. As I said at Friday's press conference, if he had not existed, it would have been necessary to invent him.
I welcome the minister's statement. In recent weeks, it has become almost a tradition for me to welcome what Jack McConnell says. I will take issue with one of his comments in a moment, but I think that he has grasped both the urgency and significance of the situation. We need to make radical changes, but in such a way that we can attempt—that is an important qualification—to guarantee not only a smooth diet next year, but that we get the Scottish examination system back on the rails.
The announcement on the remuneration of markers is welcome. That is a huge issue. People do not mark exam scripts just for money, but they certainly need an adequate reward. I accept that the supervision arrangement has been set up, although I do not think that it will be as effective as having an individual supervising the SQA day to day. The new arrangement may be helpful and I look forward to seeing how it works. I hope that the deputy minister will keep the committee members informed about its progress.
The simplification of certificates is essential. I regret the decision not to return appealed scripts. That was a matter of debate. There were different views in the committee. I know that the suggestion has met resistance from some of the teaching unions, among other groups. I am not saying that Ian Jenkins speaks for the teaching unions, but he certainly argued that case strongly in the committee, as did Johann Lamont. However, the matter raises issues of accessibility and openness. There is no reason why the pupils involved should not see scripts that have been marked and assessed. That principle of accessibility and openness applies to the Parliament and its founding principles and should apply throughout Scottish public life. I will argue that the system that is already in place south of the border should be implemented in future years.
I would like to clarify my response this morning and my longer-term intentions. To return the scripts at the moment would impose an administrative burden and would not solve any difficulties if any wrong results remain. However, I am not against that happening in principle in the future. We will discuss that with the SQA as a matter of urgency, in advance of confirming next year's markers. People who mark exam papers next summer should know in advance that the scripts could potentially be returned to pupils.
That is a key issue. When I visited the SQA, I asked to see several scripts to see what the marks on the paper looked like. I hope that the minister will consult more widely than just the SQA on the return of scripts.
I want to stick to two issues: first, the events of yesterday, and secondly, what happens from now on. If I may fall into what might be called a McCliché, yesterday starts today. Yesterday's announcement from the SQA, coupled with the First Minister's comments, creates a problem. If, almost halfway through the period between exam results and the start of the exam diet, the Executive and the SQA demonstrate that they are not talking to each other—that was the significance of yesterday's announcement—it is clear that there is a problem. The committee's report said that one of the reasons for the crisis last August was a failure of communication between the SQA and the Executive. If that has started again, a considerable difficulty is ahead of us. I urge the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs and the First Minister to re-establish communication, if it does not seem to be taking place, to find out what the problem is and to ensure that everybody is singing from the same hymn sheet.
I do not consider the First Minister's assurances today and at the weekend to be leadership, as Duncan McNeil has described them, but I consider them to be a touch of playing to the gallery. I want the system to succeed. Everybody wants success next year, but we cannot stand here and will it. We must take action to produce success. I hope that the action that the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs and his department are taking will produce success, but let us try to keep to that level at that moment. We should put in the effort, not just make the statements.
Another issue arises from the report. It is touched on only tangentially, but it might be the most significant issue of the entire SQA crisis. Even in the huge dark cloud, there is the slightest part of a silver lining. I do not take Ian Jenkins's view that we had to have the crash to know what was wrong. That is a highly cynical view for a Liberal Democrat. It surprises me, and I am a great admirer of Mr Jenkins. A tiny sliver of hope lies in the fact that the crisis might make us question our whole system for educating our children. Professor Lindsay Paterson develops that point well in his new book on the exam crisis. I will not précis that, but I will say that we have accepted for too long that our education system requires—in the words that the English schools minister used a couple of weeks ago—pressure and support.
We put substantially too much pressure into the system, and not enough support. Pupils are subject to the demands of continuous assessment, league tables, performing and even the demand that—a generally accepted view in the chamber, but perhaps not a wise one—all education is focused simply on the need to find jobs and that all education is for work. I asked the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs about that when the Education, Culture and Sport Committee discussed the national priorities last week. Even he could not answer one of my questions about what the national priorities mean. We accept those ideas too readily. Some systems in Europe and elsewhere do not lean so heavily on pressure or continuous assessment, and they are not less successful. Indeed, often they are more successful. They educate the whole child, develop the whole personality and contribute to the whole of society.
Much must be done between now and next summer, and much must be done thereafter. I hope that, as we work our way through the crisis, the small sliver of silver lining will begin to grow and that we will all be able to examine the purpose of education, to make pupils, parents and teachers more satisfied and perhaps make them enjoy the educational experience more. If we enrich the experience, we will have a better Scotland. Out of the tragedy comes that possibility. I look forward to debating it over the weeks and months to come, as part of the process of change that the SQA requires and which is taking place now as a result of the reports.
I, too, will pay my respects to and thank several people before I discuss the report. The work done by the clerks—Martin Verity, David McLaren, Ian Cowan and Peter Reid—was a tremendous effort. Especially when we approached the closing stages of discussion, many drafts of the report were produced not just expeditiously, but accurately. It is obvious that much work was done into the wee sma hours. Draft reports were available for members of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee in time to allow us to check what had been discussed the previous day. The clerks deserve a great deal of thanks.
As was said, the committee's advisers Hamish Long and Professor McGettrick contributed a great deal, not just by giving advice, thoughts and insight, but by helping to confirm the pertinent questions for committee members and by ensuring that we got to the root of many problems. That was particularly helpful. Most committee members thought that they knew about higher still—it is probable that members who are or were education spokesmen thought that—but there is no doubt that once the committee started to investigate the exam chaos, it was clear that not even we knew about many of its aspects. That told us something. If we did not know about some aspects of higher still, teachers, parents and pupils could not have known about them.
The convener, Mary Mulligan, chaired the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's inquiry well and competently, especially when she showed how to chair a meeting at which pupils and parents gave evidence. I thank pupils, parents, teachers and others who gave oral evidence to the committee. That did a great deal to strengthen the evidence.
I pay tribute to several groupies, who constantly attended the committee's meetings. I will not embarrass them by naming them, but some people thought that it was important to come along and contribute in many other ways. I think that they found the meetings enjoyable and illuminating. I thank them for attending.
As has been said, there was a great deal of consensus. Last Friday, I calculated that 96.5 per cent of the report was agreed. Of course, I have made my comments, and I stand by them. In the political sense, the committee failed. I will clarify that comment, for the convener's benefit. I mean that the recorded divisions were about political aspects. No member noted any dissent from the report, apart from on those noted divisions. At times, the debate was fierce, especially on matters such as HMI and the return of scripts. Having negotiated, changed lines and changed our drafts, we coalesced around the report. The only subject on which we could not agree was the amount of guilt, or responsibility, of the ministers.
It is worth talking about the advice that was available from the Scottish Executive. It was helpful to have the advice, limited as it was. I supported the method of obtaining it. I felt that it was better to ensure that we received some of the advice that officials gave to ministers, or evidence of it. With the minutes of the meetings and telephone calls, and the copies of correspondence, we had probably 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the background advice to ministers.
Had we held out for more information, we might not even have received the material that we did in time to inform the inquiry. On that point, I disagree with Mike Russell. It should be noted that most of the attacks on ministers during the no confidence debate were based on the evidence that the committee received. Therefore, a useful precedent was set. Availability of some advice can certainly be improved, but I think that the committee will take advantage of the precedent if similar circumstances arise.
The report shows that the SQA staff worked tirelessly. As I have said, they fitted the description of lions led by donkeys. They worked beyond the call of duty to try to get the exam results out on time. Had they not done so, the crisis would have been worse.
It is clear that the SQA board failed. What is worrying for many people who study quangos and non-departmental public bodies is that they thought that the board represented a cross-section of the educational establishment. Many members of the board were from organisations that were giving warnings about and making criticisms of higher still. It was clear from the evidence that we took that those warnings were all about difficulties in schools. Nobody focused on difficulties in the SQA.
The report considers the design of higher still. It must be noted that there was consensus about introducing higher still and about creating the SQA out of the SEB and SCOTVEC. However, the design of higher still contributed to the problems.
The markers have been discussed. They cannot continue to receive less than the minimum wage. I welcome the minister's announcements on that matter and look forward to its being resolved. Likewise, the matter of certificates must be resolved. Anyone who has seen the certificates wonders how they ever came to be issued.
I support the return of scripts in future, as is done in England. I supported the return of scripts on this occasion, for appeals. While I welcome the minister's announcement about setting up an independent panel, we did not hear from the minister—he ran out of time to take my intervention—whether that panel will make the scripts available. It is a matter of confidence; I have sufficient faith in the marking system and in the standards of marking that the scripts could be returned—I hope that that might still be allowed. There are problems with subjects such as the art higher that need to be addressed.
I welcome the new, fresh attitude of John Ward—as chairman of the SQA—and Bill Morton, in saying that there are problems and that they are still dealing with them. Only by being so realistic, open and informative can we identify those problems and seek to resolve them. It is important that the minister's guarantee is honoured. I do not want to be here, again, attacking the minister next year; I want his political salvation to be the fact that he could deliver on that guarantee.
For those of us in politics and in the media, and for those of us who had that debate, the situation was a crisis and a shambles. However, for those who were part of it, it was a tragedy that we must ensure will not happen again. The report goes a long way towards ensuring that it will not; with the backing and initiative of ministers, we can ensure that there is no embarrassment for Henry McLeish.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The opening speeches have taken us almost to 11.35 am—the debate is due to finish at 12.30 pm. I believe that, under rule 8.14.3, I may suggest that the debate be extended by half an hour, with the agreement of the chamber. Otherwise, few back benchers will have the opportunity to speak.
That requires the agreement of the chair—the chair does not agree, because a motion on that very issue has already been voted on this morning. I call the final opening speaker, Mr George Lyon.
Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer. With respect, we have not voted on the issue of extending the debate because of the number of back-bench members who wish to speak. It is therefore possible for the chamber to vote on that issue.
I will not accept a motion on that issue. I call Mr George Lyon, as the final speaker in the opening part of the debate.
I thank all those who gave evidence to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and the clerks for their hard work and perseverance in ensuring that the committee came to a unanimous conclusion and that everyone on the committee agreed to the final report. I welcome Jack McConnell's announcements this morning. He has implemented many of the committee's recommendations—he should be congratulated on that.
As everyone will be aware, the committee's remit was to consider issues of accountability and governance and whether they contributed to the problems faced by the SQA. In our deliberations, it became clear to us all that the board and senior management were negligent in a number of the ways in which they dealt with the problems that presented themselves, not only last year but right back to the formation of the SQA. We have to go back to the beginning to see where the seeds of the problems were sown.
To merge the SEB and SCOTVEC was to try to bring together not only two organisations, but two different cultures. It is clear from the evidence that was presented to us—and that in the Deloitte & Touche report—that convergence of the two cultures was never achieved. Indeed, right until the end, when the whole disaster unfolded, it was still two separate cultures and organisations—one based in Dalkeith, the other in Glasgow—that were operating independently of each other. That was a major contributory factor in the failure to deliver on this year's exam results. The board did not seem to be aware that those problems still existed.
The second failure was the failure to carry out a proper risk assessment. Any organisation that embarks on the introduction of a brand new form of exam—higher still—and the extra work load and information needed to implement it over 12 months, while implementing a brand new IT system, is taking on a very difficult job indeed. We would have expected senior management and the board at least to carry out a proper risk assessment of whether the organisation could deliver on the day. That risk assessment was not carried out properly; the risk was not evaluated and, at the end of the day, the SQA embarked on a high-risk strategy, seemingly unaware of how risky it was. Ultimately, it failed in its objective.
The third major area where we found fault was the failure to put in place proper reporting systems to monitor the performance of the SQA over the year. Not only did it embark upon a high-risk strategy and a challenging work load, but it had no management information system to tell it, on a monthly or weekly basis, where the organisation stood in its delivery of the 2000 exam diet. That fundamental issue lies at the heart of why the SQA did not recognise early enough what was going wrong inside the organisation. Even the day before the problems came to light, the SQA chairman, David Miller, held a press conference and was still insisting that 99 per cent of the exam results would be delivered the following day. It was only the next morning, when Mr Miller and his chief executive trotted along to Dalkeith, that they discovered just how bad the situation really was.
Those failures can be laid at the door of the chief executive and the board of management. It should also be highlighted that although the chairman was on the senior management team, no board members were. Although many concerns were coming up to senior management team level, there was no conduit between the board and the management team, so that the board could be made aware of the concerns within the organisation.
Looking ahead, we must consider how to deal with those issues and take the matter forward for the coming year. Jack McConnell has already implemented a number of recommendations. The first and most important point is that the committee did not believe that the SQA could be taken apart and reassembled for the coming year. The real challenge is to deliver the 2001 exam diet; we must therefore make do and mend the organisation that exists, then consider stripping out its functions. I am glad that Mr McConnell is moving on that matter.
In the longer term, we believe that there must be a fundamental discussion in the Parliament on the relationship between ministers, the Executive, the Parliament and quangos, and how we monitor the performance of quangos. There are 200 to 300 quangos in Scotland. We must be able to understand what they are doing on behalf of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. We have a new, devolved Scotland—it is time that the quangos came into line with that. I hope that, in the coming months, ministers will look seriously at how we deal with that matter.
I agree with the member about quangos but, unfortunately, his coalition partnership is yet to find the box of matches to burn them. In fact, it has created more quangos. Has he any answer to that?
I believe that the Scottish National Party is also in favour of creating a large number of quangos.
I will finish on the importance of the role of the Parliament's committees. It seems that, over the past month or two, there has been a sustained and systematic attempt to undermine our committees, through leaks and briefings that take place before the committees report. That happened to the Health and Community Care Committee and to both the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. Such action and behaviour should be utterly condemned by everyone in the chamber, as it amounts to an attack on the parliamentary system and is a systematic attempt to devalue and undermine the Parliament's committees. It is high time that action was taken.
The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee reported to the Standards Committee the briefings that took place before the committee had produced its report. I suggest that the Standards Committee must take action to hunt out the individuals responsible and, once they have been identified, they should be suspended from the Parliament as a sign that we will not condone the systematic undermining of the integrity of the committees. That integrity is sacrosanct and must be protected.
We move now to open debate, which must conclude by 12 noon. Significantly more members are asking to speak than we have time available to hear them. I will be rigorous in keeping speeches to four minutes, which will allow time for five speakers.
All the inquiries have been completed, the findings have been set out and analysed in great detail and the recommendations are being considered, but today's debate is by no means the end of the matter. The real work starts now. Restoring public and professional confidence in our exam system, which was badly undermined by the SQA's handling of the higher results, is a big job.
There is no doubt that the situation has been a tragedy for the young people involved who, at the least, should have been able to rely on the Government and its agencies to deliver their exam results. As Moray Council's education service said:
"Pupils have no concept of over a century of SEB credibility. Most of them have simply had a very bad experience, and teachers are finding it difficult now to motivate pupils who are still waiting for their final 99-00 results."
In fact, the crisis affected the whole nation, and the damage has been felt even furth of Scotland. Every effort must be made to restore credibility and confidence in our country, in its record of academic excellence and in its economic potential.
Even though we now know most of the answers about the causes of the crisis, sufficient evidence of continuing problems can be found in the report of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to require on-going, rigorous monitoring of the SQA to ensure that it is doing its job properly.
There is concern about next year's exam diet—it may be that not enough has been done sufficiently quickly to guarantee that summer 2001 will be problem free. Outstanding appeals remain to be resolved and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee strongly recommended that scripts be returned. While it is disappointing that that will not happen this year at least, the introduction of an independent review of the appeals is important.
A new element was introduced in recent days, and it appears likely that the appeals process may face a significant challenge in the courts on the ground that the process breaches the European convention on human rights. The challenge is based on the fact that the SQA marks exams and handles appeals; the ECHR requires that people should be able to appeal to an "independent and impartial" hearing. Should that challenge proceed, it could throw this year's results into even more doubt and the matter could take even more time to resolve. Time is something that we do not have.
It has also been reported in recent days that up to one third of schools have missed the deadlines and have not registered their candidates for next year. That seems to underline the need for decisive action by the minister on the eminently sensible recommendations of both committees. I acknowledge that that process has begun already.
Measures must be taken to ensure that never again will pupils have to face such an experience. To mention but a few of the principal recommendations, we must simplify the exam certificate, the disputed exam scripts should be reviewed, if not returned, and the SQA must adopt a new culture of transparency, openness and co-operation.
It will, however, be difficult to make next year's exams work. Despite the undoubted and, as yet, unresolved difficulties, the First Minister is on record as promising that there will never be a repeat of this year's chaos and that no child will be affected next year. It is interesting to note that those pledges have not been endorsed by the new chair of the SQA, who realistically acknowledges the difficulties and says that he cannot guarantee the effectiveness or efficiency of the organisation for three years.
It is not helpful to make cheap media soundbites that might mislead the pupils, parents and teachers of Scotland. We need evidence to show that everyone involved, particularly the Administration, is working together to resolve these problems.
Crisis, fiasco, disaster and tragedy are some of the words that were used to describe the events surrounding this summer's examination results. Young people who put their faith in the system were let down by the system. Teachers and others highlighted concerns about time scale, assessment and the sheer volume of work, but no one seemed to be listening. Young folk and their families waited for examination results on the morning of 10 August, but were disappointed. In some cases, pupils got nothing at all; in others, they got only part of their results. SQA telephone helplines were not helpful at all, with staff telling young folk and their families to check with the school. Teaching staff went into schools over their summer break—as they always do—to help young people deal with their exam results, but they were unable to help because the organisation that asked pupils to contact their school did not provide the information that schools needed to help the young people.
The words that I used at the beginning of my speech were fitting. The situation did not arise as a result of a fluke or bad luck—it was mismanagement on a large scale. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee report gives a comprehensive review of the committee's findings and, as it would be impossible to cover all of them in four minutes, I draw members' attention to the issues that relate to the management of the SQA.
It is easy to be wise after the event—the more evidence the committee heard, the less surprised we were to learn that the organisation simply did not work. SQA committees failed to record their proceedings and there appeared to be no communications link between those committees and the SQA board.
The finance and general purposes committee—the SQA's main committee—met only three times a year. There appeared to be a lack of strategic planning prior to the year 2000 diet. No one questioned whether the SQA was able to deliver or whether the operations department had the staff and the skills to undertake the task in hand. While staff and others raised concerns, there appeared to be no efficient communication mechanisms to deal with them. Indeed, communication in the organisation appears to have been non-existent.
Despite all that, the chairman described the SQA as a can-do organisation. Even when the scope of the problem was realised, self-deception appears to have been rife and it seems that no one took on board the issues that had arisen. While I do not believe that Sam Galbraith or any other minister was responsible for the events at the SQA, I believe that it is vital that an appropriate structure is developed to ensure a clear line between the SQA and the Scottish Executive.
The report highlights the conflicting roles of HMI in the development of higher still. I welcome Jack McConnell's actions to date on HMI and the SQA. I also welcome the comments he made this morning about appeals. To be able to draw a line under this year's results and to restore confidence in the exam system, we must be clear that appeals have been dealt with.
I suggest that we consider a long-term structure for the SQA and that the minister should involve the committee and the Parliament in such a consultation.
In relation to exam results, the important people are young people. If both we and the SQA follow the recommendations of both committees, the events of this year will not happen again.
Seldom can so much scrutiny have been directed at an organisation by so many people over such a short time. I pay tribute to the many people who gave evidence to the committees as well as to the committees' clerks. Seldom can such a catalogue of confusion and chaos have been revealed. It is plain that the pupils of Scotland have been badly let down by the staff, the management and the board of the SQA, and by ministers.
The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's role was to investigate the governance of the SQA. If the peculiar governance of the SQA—being governed by two ministers—played a role in the failure of the organisation, I have to say that no evidence was laid that the split in responsibility was in any way to blame. What was revealed was a failure of management, a failure by the board to inquire deeply enough into the organisation and an acceptance of assurances that all would be well. We found that the board of the SQA was not informed and that its members did not try to inform themselves, even though problems were raised at every board meeting. The board relied on the chief executive, the chief executive relied on management, and it seemed to the committee that the credo that all will be right on the night was king.
The fact that one minister was enjoying a sojourn in the Western Isles while the other was conveniently half way across the world did not add to the crisis. Nor, in my view, did it really matter whether ministers were in Western Australia or in the Western Isles. They could have been in Florida, Capri or Ice Station Zebra and there would have been little they could have done. They could have been wading in the depths of the Orinoco river or wrestling bears in Russia and they would have been impotent to prevent the tragedy from unfolding.
There were deep flaws in the system that even the most effective minister would have been powerless to foresee. If the Education, Culture and Sport Committee lays the blame on the basis of its evidence or if Mr Russell and his ilk posture and pout in front of the cameras and huff and puff, I cannot say whether they are correct to do so. I cannot say whether the evidence given to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee is strong enough to justify censures, as I did not hear it. However, what I can say is that there is something profoundly wrong with a system that allows governance to degenerate to the extent that it did in this case.
The evidence from the former minister, Mr McLeish, led the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee to believe that, in his view, there was a relationship between the amount of money an organisation seeks from the Scottish Executive and the amount of contact and scrutiny thereby exercised. It does not bode well for the governance of Scotland that the governance of the SQA was reduced to the ministerial equivalent of a vicarage tea party. There can be no way in which effective governance is reduced to "One lump or two? And would you like a Rich Tea biscuit or a custard cream?" That is what governance of the SQA amounted to for the minister.
On 6 March, Mr McLeish sat down with the chairman and chief executive and discussed the corporate plan, the financial reserves, the board composition and staffing matters. No direction was given by ministers. That was the extent of the supervision that Mr McLeish exercised. The same minister has now pledged that there will be no repetition of the difficulties. It does not bode well if the reports in today's press about difficulties with this year's exam registrations are accurate or if John Ward's report that it will take three years to solve the problems is true.
The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee has made recommendations that are sound and based on good practice. That the new minister has acted on some of them already is welcome. Ministers must take heed and move towards implementation of the other recommendations to rescue the reputation of Scotland's education system and to ease the worries and allay the fears of Scotland's pupils and their families. The Conservatives welcome the move made by the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs today and wish him well in sorting out the problems of the agency.
This debate is much better than the lamentable first hour or so, not only because I am participating in it, but because other members have made very constructive speeches.
I would like to begin by making two procedural remarks. First, I could not understand why the Executive did not accept the SNP's offer to use that party's time tomorrow for the no confidence motion so that there could be a longer debate on the SQA—and I voted accordingly. Secondly, although the Opposition parties are perfectly right to introduce motions about people resigning if they see fit, they must accept that the effect of that is to polarise the debate. The people on the Government side will never admit that anything is wrong, and they rally round the minister. The more they think the minister is wrong, the more they rally round. The people on the other side—
That is one of your four minutes gone already, Mr Gorrie. To the subject please.
The First Minister has said that the Executive promises to deliver. It is important that he has said that, and Jack McConnell has made a good start in delivering but, by God, we have to deliver, because we will be clearly judged on that. It is not an issue that can be fudged. Almost anything in politics can be fudged, but if it is seen that the delivery of the exam system next year in Scotland is not satisfactory, public support for this Parliament and for the Executive will collapse completely. Delivery is therefore vital.
The problem with the two reports is that there has been a long build-up. It is rather as if we were having a discussion about the Dunkirk fiasco and whether our lorries performed well during the retreat. The whole build-up was caused years before. Like other MPs, I responded soon after the general election to calls by constituents to table questions at Westminster about higher still. It is to the credit of Brian Wilson that he at least postponed implementation for a year, but the conduct of the affair by the Scottish Office before the Scottish Parliament came into being is open to serious criticism.
Anyone who creates a new exam board, bringing together two very disparate organisations in the hope that they will fit together instantly, who introduces a new exam that is repeatedly criticised by those who are supposed to implement it, and who then introduces a new computer system without running it in or trying it out—and expects to have no disaster—must be idiotic. Who was pushing that through? Whoever was doing that should be held to account, whether they are ministers, civil servants, HMIs or computer buffs.
How we construct our policy and hold people to account for it is a very serious issue. We must have a thorough review of the position of civil servants and how they conduct affairs. The minister has started dealing with the HMIs, which is good, but the quangos that George Lyon mentioned must also be reviewed.
The way in which we conduct our government has been brought into the open by recent events and we must examine that very carefully, in addition to doing the things that are recommended in the two committee reports.
Events tend to move more swiftly than the production of parliamentary reports. I feel that this morning's debate has moved to such an extent because of the announcements that we have heard from Mr McConnell, who I see is choosing this moment to leave the chamber. His announcements were worthy of serious scrutiny. Members of all parties recognise that the action that has been taken by the new minister is welcome, but I am seriously concerned that he may need to take other steps and that the independent appeal process that he has announced must be considered very carefully.
I say that because we know that there is a possible threat of court action, which has been the subject of publicity. It is based on the simple proposition that the existing process does not comply with article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which states that everyone shall have the right to a full and fair hearing before an impartial tribunal. We have already seen in the case of County Properties and Developments that Scotland's planning law is essentially in abeyance because it does not comply with article 6.
At first glance, it seems to me that the existing system of exam appeals is in breach of the ECHR and I therefore welcome Jack McConnell's announcement that there will be a panel, but will the panel be independent? Will the teachers—experienced teachers, I believe he said—who serve on the panel be involved in teaching? Might that be said to compromise their independence? Do not we need an entirely different, separate and independent panel, whose members are not involved in the teaching process?
I understood Mr McConnell to state that he rules out the return of papers at the moment. That is what he said and it seems to me that the implication of that is that he is not ruling out the return of papers quite soon. I urge Mr McConnell to accept the recommendation, which I believe was made by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, that papers be returned, and I do so for one simple reason. If they are not returned, I fear that there is a possibility—how great a possibility it is not for me to say—that we will face the spectacle of a court action in which pupils say, "Why didn't they let my teacher see my paper?" That point is unanswerable.
Today, I received the distinct impression that Mr McConnell has conceded that papers must be returned—if not to pupils themselves, to their head teachers or at least to the education authorities. I welcome the announcements that Mr McConnell has made and I make my comments in the hope that the decisions that he has announced today will be considered carefully and, perhaps, fine- tuned, so that imminently we may have a further decision to return the papers.
This episode shows that there is an unhealthy relationship between quangos and the Government. Quangos are very useful things, because they cushion the Government from the impact of unpopular decisions. That is convenient for the Government from the point of view of news management, but if we regard being accountable for our actions as an essential principle of democracy, it is wrong.
It is essential that the SQA should complete its work for this year. As a result of today's news reports, however, I am becoming concerned that there is trouble afoot and that the existing measures, welcome though they are, will not be sufficient to solve the problem.
Thank you, Presiding Officer, for giving me an opportunity to contribute to this debate.
I want to return briefly to the earlier debate on the motion of no confidence. It is true that in the Education, Culture and Sport Committee there was a discussion of things that the minister could have—rather than should have—done. However, it was accepted that, given the seriousness of the crisis, those things would have made no difference. It is ironic that, after the committee's report criticised the blame culture within the SQA, the SNP should have chosen to play hunt the minister, rather than to confront the problems that developed. That was out of kilter with what was said by SNP members at meetings of the committee.
There is no doubt that the views of members of both the committees involved in these inquiries were shaped by a sense of crisis, which led people to make bold assertions about its causes. Some said that it was the result of a failure to delay the introduction of higher still. Others said that it was caused by SCOTVEC, by higher still itself or by the former Minister for Children and Education. None of those assertions survived scrutiny by the committee. The real causes of the crisis were much more frightening and much more complex.
All members of the committee were horrified by the chaos within the organisation of the SQA. The problems were compounded by bad decisions taken during the process—such as to have a helpline that not only gave no help, but actively undermined the credibility of the examination system. Given that confidence in the examination system and its credibility are so delicate, I urge caution on those members who are now talking about the return of scripts, about restoring faith in the system and about the dangers that we face next time round.
The SQA was reluctant to admit to the existence of problems. The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service gave evidence that, if it had been told that there was a problem, it could have helped, which would have reduced the scale of the crisis that occurred. We were all shocked by the breathtaking meltdown that took place. It was horrifying to realise that it was difficult to see how that could have been stopped. When we asked the Scottish Executive whether it could have intervened further, we were told that there was no safety net. I agree with those members who have said that we need to explore further how public bodies can be held to account. We need to ensure that crucial work that is being done on our behalf is not left vulnerable to organisations that have sole responsibility for it but fail to deliver.
The report of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee reaffirms the importance of the higher still approach, which upholds the rights of all the young people in our education system. However, it also addresses the question of cumbersome assessment. The committee is not saying that there should not be internal assessment. I believe that that is as important as ever in valuing all our young people. However, we need to examine the way in which internal assessment is managed. Some of the comments that were made about SCOTVEC and internal assessment gave evidence of hostility towards an examination process that seeks to meet the needs of all our young people. In this area, too, I urge caution. When we call for change, we are not saying that we want a purely academic education system that does not meet the needs of a broader group.
There was an interesting discussion about the assessment tail wagging the education dog. In evidence we have seen that parents and young people attach huge importance to results—to the product of education rather than the process. We must have a further debate on what rights we, as a society, seek from education in addition to exam results at the end of it.
On freedom of information, those who examine the tortuous process that our committee went through to get information should reflect that it highlights the problem with a system that is not open and accountable. I hope that that will be used to change the system so that we can get information, call people to account and ensure that those who act on our behalf do so responsibly.
That ends the open debate. For the record, since much was made of it, three members who wished to speak were not called.
I have used my discretion in respect of the motion to allow an overrun of five minutes to ensure overall balance. I expect the debate to finish at about 12:35. I call Marilyn Livingstone to close for the Labour party.
This debate is, and has to be, about our young people who have been caught up in the SQA debacle. They and their families have suffered from the mismanagement within the SQA.
As a member of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, I will take this opportunity to thank all the members, the convener and especially all those who gave evidence in a frank and honest way. That honesty and frankness has enabled us to publish a comprehensive and far-reaching report. Our report, which covers governance, rightly examines short and long-term issues. Everyone wants faith and confidence to be restored to a system that has been fundamentally damaged this year.
In my constituency of Kirkcaldy, I am dealing with a case load of queries surrounding this year's appeals process. I was delighted by the minister's announcement that he is going to consider an independent review. Young people's lives have been affected. Many of the measures that Jack McConnell has already taken will go a long way to restore confidence.
Many administrative and managerial fundamentals were absent from the confines of the SQA. Both reports cite significant managerial omissions, especially in risk management, in which the SQA has critically failed. A major theme that has run through the inquiries has been lack of communication, lack of management information, no performance management and no direction from the boardroom and senior management. Communication difficulties within the mishmash of management tiers, including that of an overweight boardroom, compounded by complex structures that were set well below board level, led to the meltdown of the SQA. An "It'll be all right on the night" mentality prevailed throughout the organisation. Our inquiry has tackled the issues in a comprehensive and professional manner. We kept the needs of our young people at the core of our agenda at all times. Our young people and their families deserve no less. We must do all in our power to ensure that Scotland's youth never again have to endure a summer such as we saw this year.
The core issues in our report are clear for all to see. There was a lack of risk management—or rather far too much risk and no management. A considerable target-setting deficiency ensured the absence of proper performance evaluation throughout the process. There was a communications breakdown in the elaborate and labyrinthine tiers of governance. An oversized and under-informed boardroom lacked direction and was unable to wield effective power. All those issues, coupled with poor strategic and operational planning, contributed to the problem.
The complicated build-up of organisational weakness was coupled with no hard-core management information, which would have informed the SQA's approach to its inability, or ability, to deliver this year's programme. That was paramount among the reasons behind this summer's problems.
Our inquiry laid out a logical, commonsense framework for the way ahead. It examined the role of ministers and cleared them of all blame. We came to the view that no action taken by the minister would have stopped this year's meltdown.
In the short term, our report focuses on ensuring that systems give current students confidence in the process. They must believe that they can trust the SQA to deliver a fair and just examinations system. Jack McConnell's announcement this morning will go a long way to restore confidence.
This is not a time to look back. We must look forward for the sake of all those who are sitting the exams this year and in the future. We have made medium and long-term recommendations to the minister. The overarching theme at the core of our proposals is transparency, openness and accountability, while maintaining the SQA's independence.
In conclusion, I welcome both reports and the minister's response. Our young people deserve a true consensual attitude and way forward.
As acting convener for the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee for most of the inquiry meetings, I want to take this opportunity to thank my committee colleagues; Simon Watkins and the clerking staff for a tremendous job; and of course all the witnesses who so willingly appeared before us at short notice.
The fact that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's remit was to examine the issue of governance has already been mentioned. That remit led us to consider the process of wider management of the SQA from the ministers through departmental civil servants, the chair and the board to the chief executive.
What emerged from our inquiry was a series of vacuums. The ministers and department were in one vacuum, and there was a separate, hermetically sealed SQA in which two vacuums existed, one at board level and the other in the rest of the organisation. Quite simply, a volcano was erupting in the SQA which the board and chief executive did not know about.
That is why in paragraph 37 on page 8 of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee report, the committee concluded that the problem was not a deficiency of governance but "a failure of management", which—to anyone who has been in business—was on a scale beyond comprehension. The committee therefore concluded that the board had been negligent. The board should have had a hunger for information and explanation, and there should have been an unrelenting insistence on answers being provided by reaching down to all operational levels to find out what was going wrong and where it was happening. After all, the SQA had agreed a corporate plan that, although perhaps unrealistically onerous, had been signed off by ministers. Both board and ministers can be criticised for not having a clearer overview of the strains that the plan would impose on the organisation.
As a result, the committee focused on several essential issues such as an absence of a proper performance management network within the executive departments; an absence of an effective risk assessment process in the SQA; an absence of clarity about the role of SQA board members; and an absence of a lean, robust board structure with clarity about its role. I welcome Mr McConnell's initiative in taking steps in connection with the SQA board. The committee's specific recommendations address those points of concern, as do its suggestions for a better operational model. I very much hope that the minister will be minded to consider the committee's proposals and suggest that they be rigorously and positively pursued.
Three broad consequences flow from the report, the first of which relates to devolution. The arrival of the Parliament has changed for ever the relationship between NDPBs and Government. When things go wrong in Scotland, people will look first to this Parliament to put them right. The Executive must recognise—and, to be fair, has recognised—that that element needs to be considered. Indeed, further action might be necessary to regulate or determine how we deal with the relationship between NDPBs and the Parliament from now on.
Secondly, the improvements recommended in the report should certainly be pursued vigorously. Most important, the reports from the two committees should not be regarded as the end of the matter—they have to be the new beginning. That is essential for public confidence. This Parliament must hold a magnifying glass over the SQA and take on board the alarming and very real concerns expressed by Professor John Ward, to devise a structure that will allow the Executive to report to the Parliament regularly in the forthcoming year about what is happening in the SQA.
Marilyn Livingstone said that we must look forward, not back. Although that has been the general ethos of this debate, I will highlight one caveat: those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. We must look back if we wish to ensure that next year's exam results situation does not mirror this year's chaos.
We have heard from two ministers this morning. We heard from the First Minister in the earlier debate. I welcome his further commitment to ensure that the crisis will not be repeated in 2001, notwithstanding the comments that were made by Professor Ward, which Annabel Goldie touched on. I trust that the resources will match the rhetoric, as Professor Ward clearly highlights a problem. Additional resources must be provided. As Mike Russell said, we must not simply wish that to happen.
We also heard from the new Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs, Jack McConnell. Where criticism is due, it is appropriate that criticism should be given; similarly, where credit is due, credit should be given. The Scottish National Party welcomes the outline of actions that have been taken to date, which was given by the minister, and the additional comments that he made today. We broadly welcome those actions and look forward to seeing the improvements that will be made as a result of them.
It has been said that the reputation of Scottish education has been tarnished. That is true. It has also been suggested—although I cannot remember by whom—that, to some extent, we have been resting on our laurels. That is also true. For too long, we have dined out on our reputation. Much credit is due to the Scottish education system, the structure and ethos of which are correct. The broadly based education that it provides is to be welcomed and is superior to that which is provided elsewhere, including south of the border. However, as is the case with our transport infrastructure, the education system is creaking and groaning. It has been under-resourced and we have failed to address that fact. The situation must be addressed now.
Education in Scotland is no longer simply a matter of educating our youngsters: it is part of one of the new economic sectors for Scotland in the 21st century. We ignore that sector at our peril if we fail to educate our youngsters for the 21st century economy or fail to recognise it as a core sector of our economy.
I reiterate what has been said by other members. I pay tribute to the members of both committees, the clerks and those who gave evidence and provided information. The committees' inquiries have contrasted with what takes place at Westminster and with the actions of members of the Executive and their predecessors in the Scottish Office. The Scottish Parliament's committees were clearly focused and worked with speed and urgency. They, and all who took part in the inquiries, deserve credit. Their actions contrast with the dilatoriness and dithering of the Executive, when alarm bells were ringing, and with previous actions of the Scottish Office.
Recommendation 29 of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's report talks about
"a moratorium on the introduction of further phases of Higher Still until successful delivery of the 2001 package".
It is clear that the problem was not only with the SQA. An attempt was made to fit an educational square peg into an educational round hole, by trying to implement higher still when teachers were saying that there was a problem and that it could not be done at that pace. That advice was ignored, reflecting an ethos that was perpetuated by Helen Liddell and encouraged by Tory Administrations, which held that the Executive or the Government knows best, not the teachers.
We denigrate teachers and other public servants at our peril. We can never take Scotland back to the days when the dominie knew best and had a special place in the ethos and structure of our society, but we can certainly treat our teachers better. We should respect them and listen to what they say.
Will Mr MacAskill give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
Ironically, the good that we can draw from all this is the fact that the Scottish Parliament is taking responsibility. I have been asked at meetings to name the most successful thing that the Scottish Parliament has done. I say that it has been to address this crisis. Nobody has suggested that we should return to direct rule. No member of any political party has said that we should hand over the Scottish education system to David Blunkett.
When there is an error, whoever it is made by, it is the duty of this Parliament to address it. We must address the problems in our society and rectify them. Our education is heading in the right direction. If the Transport and the Environment Committee took over the railway network, and if we empowered the Minister for Transport to look after the railways, we might expect a better transport system in future, just as we expect a better education system.
In my view, and in that of many others, this is the most serious issue to face our new Parliament. The documents that we are debating are the most important and authoritative of the reports that our new committees have produced to date. I would like not simply to thank members of both committees for the work that they have put into the reports, but to assure the committees and Parliament that the Executive is giving, and has given, urgent consideration to the findings and recommendations of both reports. However, the challenge now is not only to turn the words and insights of the recommendations into action, but to turn them into results—results that restore confidence in Scotland's exam system.
Action has already been taken, but the most important message to Scotland's pupils is this: we are all determined to do everything that we can—with the SQA, schools, colleges, teachers and lecturers, and most of all with parents and pupils—to rebuild an exam system in which everyone can have confidence.
In Mike Russell's words, we are doing things to succeed. The actions taken so far have been sensible and significant, but before going on to talk about them I will take Fergus Ewing's intervention.
If the minister will not announce today that papers will be returned to pupils, will he accept the recommendation by Bruce Robertson, the director of education of Highland Council, that anomalous papers—where the results do not reflect the expected result—be returned, either to the head teacher or to the education authority of the local council area in which the school is located?
The important thing is that for the first time we have a new, independent stage in the appeal system to ensure, not compliance with the ECHR, but fairness and equality. The matter has been discussed with Bruce Robertson and others, and there will be further announcements soon, because we must get moving with that new stage in the appeal process.
The minister indicated that the new system will not ensure compliance with the ECHR. That implies that one of the issues that must be considered over the next year is compliance with the ECHR. Will the minister address that?
I said that the reason for the new stage is not to address ECHR issues; we believe that the current system is ECHR compliant. The independent stage goes further, and is an improvement for reasons of fairness and equality because it gives extra reassurance to pupils who still feel a sense of injustice.
Action has been taken in the SQA, such as the simpler internal assessment system, which removes the need for 500,000 pieces of data to be transferred from schools and colleges to the SQA. The need for a simplified exam certificate has been acknowledged and there has been a commitment that that will be delivered. An increased fee for markers is a relevant issue. I know, because I witnessed it at first hand—my father was a marker for many years—that for too long our exam system has been run on a shoestring. We have depended upon good will and professionalism on the part of our schools, colleges and teachers. This year, teachers, perhaps above all others, have delivered and worked beyond all expectations to resolve the many problems.
The Executive has acted. This morning an independent panel to resolve outstanding higher appeals where there are still serious concerns was announced. Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools is to be reviewed. There will be a new, streamlined national qualifications steering group. The SQA's board will be reorganised, and weekly meetings will now take place with the SQA at officer level.
There also will be monthly meetings of the new ministerial review group, which will involve teachers, lecturers, directors of education, parents and pupils in an early warning system to alert us to emerging problems in any part of Scotland as next year's exam process moves forward. I regard chairing that early warning group as the most important responsibility that I could have over the next 12 months, and I want to hear from MSPs, parents, teachers and pupils if problems are emerging. I have already asked that the problem of missing pupil registrations for next year's exams be discussed at the first meeting on Tuesday, not to lay blame, but to ensure that the problem is sorted out. I make a commitment to the Opposition parties to keep them well briefed on the progress of the group and to discuss how the committees should be involved in reporting back.
The committee reports are authoritative documents. They show a remarkable degree of unity and reflect the scale of the cross-party commitment to work together to support the teachers, the schools and colleges, the markers and assessors and the SQA so that all of them together can support the people who matter most: Scotland's pupils. The Executive must do everything that it can to make certain that we get it right next year and in the future. The First Minister has made it clear that, if more resources are required, they will be delivered.
I know that the commitment that I have mentioned is shared by every MSP. Our national priority now must be to work together to make certain that Scotland's young people are served by an exam system of the quality and reliability that we expect and that they deserve. There is a lot to be done. Let us get on with it.
The debate is historic: it is the first time in the history of the Scottish Parliament that we have debated reports from two committees at once, although the committees' inquiries have slightly different remits.
As convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, I want to place on record my gratitude to the members of both committees for the sterling work that has been done in preparing the reports. I particularly want to express my gratitude to Annabel Goldie, who stood in for my predecessor, John Swinney, who was often otherwise engaged during the inquiry. Since this is Mary Mulligan's last appearance as the convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee in a major education debate, I congratulate her on her appointment as parliamentary private secretary to the First Minister. Even though she has a new position, I am quite willing to continue to offer her free advice.
I want to thank our support staff, particularly our clerk, Simon Watkins, and his team, without whom we would not have been able to produce such professional reports. I also thank the two rapporteurs. The committees worked so well not only because of co-operation at convener and clerk level, but because of the rapporteurs. Cathy Peattie was the rapporteur from the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and Marilyn Livingstone was the rapporteur from the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.
It is worth mentioning that, had the crisis occurred before the creation of the Scottish Parliament, it is almost certain that there would not have been the level of detailed scrutiny and debate that there has been. Westminster would never have got to the root of the problem. We would not have had two committee reports, we might not even have had a Deloitte & Touche report and we would not have had the kind of insight into the problems of the SQA that the Scottish Parliament has gained.
As members have said, the time has come for us to move on. Members will have seen with regret the headlines in The Herald today, forecasting a continuing three-year crisis in the exam system. However, there is cross-party determination at ministerial level, at committee level and at parliamentary level to ensure that that does not happen. We cannot afford for a crisis to happen again and we dare not accept the prophecy that it will.
On behalf of both committees, I congratulate the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs on the action that he has taken. The message from the Parliament must be "action this day". I am glad that, on the appeal process and on the measures that must be taken to ensure success in 2001, there has been "action this day". There must be action for many more days to ensure that we live up to our moral responsibility to the young people of Scotland, to the further education sector students—who should not be forgotten in the debate—to parents and to Scottish society.
My second point is that we must learn the lessons of what has happened in the SQA fiasco over the past 12 months or so. I believe that we have seven fundamental lessons to learn for the future.
The first lesson is that, when we are merging organisations, be they quangos or any other type of organisation, that merger is not simply a legal process. It must be much more than that. The two cultures of the old organisations must be brought together. Both the old organisations cannot be allowed to remain located in their previous sites without any coming together and without the full integration required to obtain the benefits of the merger.
When we consider the merger of other organisations, it is important to do so in the round, to ensure that the full benefits are reaped and that we do not end up effectively having two organisations running the show. I have already said privately to the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs that we should ensure that there is no repeat performance with the recent merger of the Scottish Council for Educational Technology and the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum.
The second lesson relates to the make-up of the SQA board. There were several fundamental flaws built into it. First, it was far too big. There cannot be decisiveness or a proper level of governance when a board holds mass meetings. A board with a job of management to do must be limited in number, while representing the broad band of skills that are required. Those skills are primarily managerial. Secondly, one of the major problems in the whole fiasco is that members of the board were chosen because they were themselves stakeholders. Stakeholders can be another word for vested interest. The minister is correct to accept the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's recommendation to split the role of the stakeholder from that of the management of the board. They are two decidedly different roles, with two decidedly different sets of skills. Thirdly, holding the board meeting once a quarter is totally ridiculous for an organisation with a budget of £27 million and employing more than 500 people full time.
The third lesson relates to overload, which is primarily a ministerial responsibility. Let us not overload the organisations with too much to do. If we do so, objectives fall between two stools and are not achieved.
The fourth lesson is on computer systems. The problems at the SQA represent the latest in a series of failures of organisations because of the introduction of new, expensive computer systems without proper risk assessment, without a proper trial period and without proper cognisance of the impact of the introduction of the new system on external organisations. Whether we take the example of the passport office or others, such introductions of new systems have been a major contributory factor to crises.
The fifth lesson, on management information, is absolutely essential. It was not conveyed before; it is being conveyed now. I welcome the fact that the minister is demanding monthly reports from the SQA, and I am sure that he will ensure that those reports will be not just prose and text but hard fact. Let us examine the performance indicators and the performance targets and ask the hard questions about what is happening on the ground vis-à-vis those indicators and targets.
The sixth lesson relates to communication, both the extremely poor communication within the SQA and that between it and the education department. There was almost a culture of trying to hide the problems instead of discussing them openly and seeking assistance where possible.
The final, seventh, lesson applies across the board: the need for a proper system of ministerial scrutiny of quangos. I do not believe that we have ever had one. There are many accountability systems across the board in Government, but we found that, until the minister introduced his recent reforms, there was no proper system of performance monitoring of a quango.
I have outlined the seven lessons that we must learn, in relation to other organisations as well to the SQA.
Clearly, our top priority must be to deal with the aftermath of the 2000 exam diet crisis, and with the appeal process in particular. We must also deal with the 2001 diet to ensure that there is no repeat of the previous year. Once those immediate issues are tackled, let us have a medium-term review of the SQA. In particular, let us ask whether one organisation can carry out the five big remits that are under the one umbrella that is the SQA, and ask what the future structure should be.
My final point is one that all members have made. The debate and—given that it is the final speech of the debate—my speech should draw a line under the crisis of 2000. Let us move on to 2001 in unity—in a consensus for Christmas—to ensure that our pupils, our parents and our population can have full faith in the Scottish Qualifications Authority and the education system.
Meeting suspended until 14:30.
On resuming—