Scottish Qualifications Authority Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2686, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, on the general principles of the Scottish Qualifications Authority Bill.
As members will be aware, the Scottish Qualifications Authority Bill will reform the governance arrangements of the SQA. We all know that the origins of the bill are clear. Members will recall the inquiries that were carried out by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, and the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, as they will recall the Executive's review of the reasons behind the difficulties that were experienced in 2000. The provisions of the bill reflect many of the findings of those reports, particularly those of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's report into the SQA's governance.
If the Parliament, the Executive and the SQA's stakeholders are to be confident that the SQA will continue to deliver the high-quality reliable service that it began to restore in 2001, one of the first steps must be to ensure that the organisation is effectively governed and accountable to all its stakeholders. The bill will do that in a number of ways: through reform of the SQA board; the creation of a new advisory council of stakeholders; and reinforced powers to enable ministers to monitor the organisation effectively.
The most significant change to the SQA board will be a reduction from its current maximum of 24 members to a membership of nine, including the chair plus the chief executive. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee report recommended the creation of a smaller board with members who are focused more on the governance and strategic direction of the organisation than on the representation of stakeholder interests. The Executive strongly concurs with that view. If board members want to represent outside interests ahead of the SQA's corporate priorities, that will lead ultimately to conflicts of interest within the board over areas of policy, which would be to the detriment of the organisation. The Executive intends to put in place a streamlined and focused board whose members' primary concern is effective governance of the SQA. The bill emphasises that board members must put the SQA's interests first.
At the end of last year, the Executive ran an open public appointments process, which resulted in the appointment by ministers of a chair and eight members. Those appointments, which began on 1 January 2002, brought the SQA board up to strength in terms of the current legislation. When the bill comes into effect, the existing board appointments—excluding the chief executive—will cease and the nine members whom ministers appointed on 1 January 2002 will be reappointed to constitute the new board. Ministers will therefore have appointed all the new board members. That is in line with the bill, which requires that ministers should appoint all members of the SQA board.
The most recent appointments were carried out in line with the guidance of the commissioner for public appointments. Future appointments will be carried out in line with that guidance or with Scottish guidance that might be put in place in the future.
The minister said that the Executive is minded to appoint existing board members to the new board. However, a substantial matter for debate during the stage 1 discussion was the possibility of having an employee of the organisation on the board. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee's stage 1 report states that, with the exception of Mr Monteith, the committee was unanimously of the view that that possibility should be considered seriously. Has the minister ruled that out in what she said? The committee would be disappointed if that were the case.
I will deal with that matter during my speech. If Michael Russell bears with me, we will get to that point.
In order to emphasise the board members' obligations to the SQA and to compensate them for the increased demands that are likely to be made on board members' time, the bill grants ministers the power to pay remuneration and certain allowances to board members.
During the consultation exercise that was carried out prior to the bill's introduction and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's evidence taking, some stakeholders expressed concern that nine members might not be enough to ensure that the board operates effectively. In setting the membership of the board, the Executive was guided by the findings of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee report, which recommended a complement of between seven and nine, which is in line with practice in the private sector. The Executive is confident that a well-run and focused board of that size, which is committed to the future success of the SQA, will be more than able to manage its work effectively.
On the point to which Michael Russell referred, in its discussions on the bill, the Education, Culture and Sport Committee expressed some support for measures to ensure the representation of SQA staff interests at board meetings. The Executive appreciates that all staff should be encouraged to have their say as the SQA moves forward. It is widely recognised that the tremendous efforts of the SQA's front-line staff, in conjunction with staff at the SQA's centres, were critical in turning the organisation around for 2001. I encourage the SQA board and chief executive to make every effort to involve staff wherever possible in the organisation's decision making. We have given thought to the points that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee made during its deliberations.
All members were pleased that, thanks to the efforts of the SQA staff, last year's diet of exams was completed successfully. I welcome the Scottish Executive's commitment to change and to maintaining stability at the SQA. Does the commitment to stability extend to the 216 permanent staff who are employed at the SQA's Dalkeith office, which is in my constituency?
I appreciate the fact that Rhona Brankin is concerned about the future of the staff in her constituency. The new SQA board will be responsible for ensuring that the organisation is fit to deliver on its purpose. I expect the board to give due consideration to whether the correct staff team is in place to do that most appropriately. That is primarily a matter for the board.
I return to the point that Mike Russell raised on whether there ought to be a staff representative on the board. The board appointments were made through an open process and most members have welcomed the fact that people had an opportunity to put their names forward in that process. I am not convinced that imposed representation by appointment to the board would have been the appropriate way forward. We must get the balance right regarding the best way in which to secure the staff's interests. I was reassured on that point by the SQA chief executive's evidence to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, which emphasised his commitment to ensuring that all the SQA's staff are fully involved and that their views are taken into account in the organisation's future. However, some discussion is still required regarding the best way in which that can be done.
I move on to issues concerning the advisory council. To ensure that the SQA maintains close and effective links with its external stakeholders, the bill will create a new advisory council to provide advice to the board. That is important in the context of what happened previously. The bill contains provision for ministers to produce subordinate legislation for the creation of an advisory council, and we will soon provide an indicative draft of the legislation that is envisaged for that. I am conscious that there have been some mixed perceptions of the advisory council's remit and the way in which it might operate, so I will try to clarify some of those issues.
The advisory council will have a remit to consider all matters relating to the SQA. The Executive anticipates that the council will focus primarily on the qualifications that are devised or awarded by the SQA—particularly on the way in which they are delivered—while considering the SQA's functions and procedures, as required. In order to ensure that the council is focused on the key issues that face the SQA, the board, the council and ministers will agree an annual work plan that will specify key considerations for the council. One priority that we have already identified is the understanding of standards in qualifications and awards.
The council will be able to provide advice to the SQA board and/or to Scottish ministers, either at the request of the SQA or ministers, or at the council's own initiative. That should take care of some of the perceived problems. The latter route—the council's initiative—is not intended to create a routine link between ministers and the council, but to ensure that direct communications are available as needed. That might be necessary, for instance, when ministers would benefit from discussions with an experienced group of stakeholders.
It will be for the board and council to decide how to ensure that their relationship is effective—for instance, the way in which the council might interact with the SQA's various committees and the other groups that the SQA currently consults on qualification issues. The core idea is that the advisory council will represent the interests of the full range of SQA stakeholders. Those stakeholders must be fully involved in consideration of relevant qualifications and awards issues.
In the light of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's report, will the minister seek to ensure that, if the convener of the advisory council is to be a member of the SQA board, that person has no other axe to grind and is not there as a stakeholder from another organisation? If that were the case, we would be back at square one.
We have made it clear that it will be board members' responsibility to put the governance of the SQA first. They will not be there as representatives solely of stakeholder organisations. When I say a bit more about the advisory council, such issues will become clear.
The bill imposes a requirement on the advisory council to consult and take account of the views of other stakeholders prior to providing its advice to the SQA or ministers. In order to ensure that there is a link between the board and the council, the convener of the council will be appointed from among the members of the SQA board. The SQA board will have regard to the advice of the council in its decision making.
Again, I know that members of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee expressed concerns about that provision's wording and suggested that the board should perhaps have a duty to respond to the council's advice. I sympathise with that view and I understand where members are coming from but, having taken further advice, I am confident that the existing provision imposes a clear obligation on the board to take into account the council's views when the board is reaching its decisions.
To put the matter on record, the Executive expects the board to discuss with the council the reasons for the board's decisions, particularly if the decisions do not reflect the council's advice on a given issue. We expect that communication to happen. We expect also that that communication will contribute to a good understanding by the board and the council of each other's perspectives. Members will probably want to make points on that matter during the debate.
It is important that we recognise that the membership of the advisory council and the terms and conditions of appointments will be specified in subordinate legislation. However, I should clarify that the advisory council members will not receive remuneration, but normal expenses and allowances only. The council will have the power to create committees or working groups and to co-opt non-members onto those groups to provide necessary expertise. The costs that are associated with that will be met from within the SQA's overall budget or, in particular instances, from specific additional funding.
The bill will grant ministers the power to produce subordinate legislation to regulate the procedures of the SQA board; for example, to impose a requirement for a particular frequency of meetings or to require the attendance of an Executive representative at board meetings. Again, many members wanted that safeguard. We are clear that we have no immediate need to introduce that subordinate legislation. However, we acknowledge the continuing concerns of Parliament and the SQA's stakeholders. We want the subordinate legislation power to be available if difficulties arise.
Will the minister give way?
If I have time, Presiding Officer.
I have a quick question for clarification. Will the council's secretariat be employed by the council and be independent of the SQA board? If not, will the secretariat be provided by the board? I hope that the answer is the former and not the latter.
Mr Neil caught me out. That must be the last intervention.
Matters about the specific operation of the council remain to be dealt with. We will take Mr Neil's points on board and seek appropriate clarification. I am conscious of time, Presiding Officer. I wanted to say another couple of things, but I will move rapidly on.
I remind members that the bill's purpose is to provide a package of reform that will ensure that the board is a more open and accountable organisation, with clearer lines of communication to stakeholders and ministers. We want that measure to be reinforced by non-statutory measures and we have put those in place. With continued monitoring and the close contact that we envisage between the Executive and the SQA, the measures that we are introducing in the bill represent the next stage in the continuing recovery of the SQA.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Scottish Qualifications Authority Bill.
The bill has a simple purpose, which is to recreate the confidence in the SQA that is necessary for it to operate effectively and deliver to young people in Scotland—and to a wider group of older people in Scotland who are exam clients of the SQA—the type of service that they have the right to expect. To use a term that I used in the chamber at the start of the debate on the SQA crisis, the bill's purpose is to restore the gold standard to Scottish education. That is a big task to undertake.
When the then Minister for Children and Education announced the options for consultation, I felt that, given the problems that existed and how they had been dealt with—direct intervention by the minister's representative and a drawing in of the SQA's functions to much more direct ministerial supervision and control—it would be more suitable to establish the SQA as an Executive agency. I made that point when the announcement was made.
Will the member take an intervention?
Can I just get started, Mr Monteith?
I also agreed to a shorter period of consultation—both Opposition parties were asked to agree to that—so that we could progress the matter.
As a result of that consultation, I was persuaded that the non-departmental public body route is probably the best one. I was not so persuaded by Mr McConnell, the former Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs who, in his usual flippant manner, claimed that agencies would be subject to intervention and interference by ministers. In so saying, perhaps he was admitting to what he had been doing with Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education for a long time. The reality is that the SQA and most of its clients do not want the major shifts that would be required to change that non-departmental public body into an agency because they believe that that would be too difficult at this stage. I pay tribute not to Jack McConnell but to John Ward, who persuaded me that that is the right approach.
We must recognise what the representative of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, Michael O'Neill, said in evidence at stage 1. Mr O'Neill said:
"until a body of evidence is available to demonstrate that the SQA operates effectively and efficiently and with stakeholder and public confidence, the Executive will require to be more involved with the SQA than it is with normal non-departmental public bodies."—[Official Report, Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 26 February 2002; c 3074-75.]
His evidence is quoted in our report because it was important and because it points to what we should realistically look forward to.
I rather regret that when the minister talked about the presence of a ministerial representative at board meetings, she did not say that that would be the norm until the SQA is up and running in such a way that there can be confidence in its operation, year on year. I hope that the minister will reflect on that point. The bill will give ministers the appropriate power; that power should be exercised—certainly in the first couple of years—to make it absolutely certain that the SQA is delivering.
The SQA is not an ordinary non-departmental public body. Members should think back to the events of two years ago, some of which were reflected in the evidence to the committee from young people from the Scottish youth parliament. What happened in the SQA came as a body blow to an entire generation of young people who were badly let down by a system that went badly wrong. The Parliament must restore confidence in a way that guarantees—as far as guarantees can be given in life—that the system will not go wrong again. We must build on that by establishing the right structures and we must ensure that suitable finance is in place and that nothing that we do makes the organisation too inflexible. Many changes are coming to education and examinations, just as many changes come in life. We must join those steps together.
Some of the points that Alex Neil raised are germane to the debate. I am concerned that the advisory council is not yet well worked out. There are big issues about the way in which it will operate and, in particular, over the way in which the board of the SQA will respond to the advisory council. I suspect that Jackie Baillie will refer to that issue later in the debate, because she raised it in committee. A duty must be put on the board of the SQA to respond formally to the advisory council and a mechanism must be put in place to let us know, openly and accessibly, what advice the advisory council gives the board and what the board does about that advice. Those checks and balances are not usual for a non-departmental public body, but I return to the fact that, because of its history, the SQA is not a usual non-departmental public body.
We must address a number of other issues. We must be absolutely sure that the system that we establish does not set some of the present operating activities of the SQA in tablets of stone. I do not want to anticipate what the minister will say next week when she launches her great debate on education, in which the Education, Culture and Sport Committee will participate constructively. However, examinations will come up during that debate, as will the amount of assessment that young people must go through. We should not build those issues into the legislation—we should have in the SQA an organisation that is flexible enough to change.
The SQA has indicated that it wants to be free to be able to develop and change in two other areas. Rhona Brankin referred to the work that the SQA does in Dalkeith. That is good work, but no one would say that it is at the cutting edge of technology. Members of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee who have been to Dalkeith will recall the shed. It is the size of two football fields and is lined with shelves that have papers on them, which people have to run around to find.
I will let Brian Monteith in presently.
Both the SQA and I think that there is a great need to bring in information technology in order to reduce the danger of losing material; that is, in order not to lose the results, unlike the technology that was in place two years ago.
I thank Mr Russell for giving way. I hear what he says about the need for technology, but many people would be concerned about sitting written examinations in school or college if no proper record—either a copy or an original document—was kept for later inspection. Such papers could be scanned and kept on computer file, but the level of credibility that that would have would be far lower than the paper copy. Although there is a need to continue to advance technology, I am concerned—I hope that Mike Russell shares my concern—that paper copies might disappear.
The paper copies are destroyed some time after the exam diet—they do not stay for ever. I still think that we should examine the possibility of returning papers. I know that the minister is still considering that. It is an issue, but there are difficulties on both sides of the argument. However, information technology has advanced sufficiently for us not to be too afraid about not having a piece of paper to wave in our hands. The paperless office has not come to the Parliament, but it has arrived elsewhere.
I will make a final point on the SQA's role. A genuine debate is needed on what the SQA's function should be. That matter is part of the greater debate, as well as being part of the debate on the bill. Should the SQA physically provide an examination system, physically intervene to get the results of that system and physically mark every paper?
If Mr Stone wishes to intervene, I say no. If he wishes to go to the toilet, that is nothing to do with me.
There is a model of operating an examination system in which there is not the active intervention that I have mentioned. Under that model, an examination body would validate the work on examinations that is done in classrooms. It becomes a franchised business.
I see that Mr Jenkins is nervous about that. I am not saying that it should happen. However, we must be open to new possibilities. We know from the events of two years ago that the size of the system, the way in which it operates and the sheer volume of data that go through the system are very difficult to manage. One must ask whether we have to manage it in the way that we do.
The SNP supports and will vote for the bill, but many issues are still to be teased out. Some are in the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's report and some will emerge at stage 2. I will make one point to the ministers: I am disappointed that the committee's enthusiasm for a board member to be appointed from the SQA staff has already had cold water poured on it. That is regrettable. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee's recent experience is that good ideas that come from the committee tend to have cold water poured on them, particularly in the drafting of bills. As I said the last time that we debated an Education, Culture and Sport Committee stage 1 report, I hope that the Executive will enter a genuine partnership with that committee in order to improve and develop the bill. I hope also that the Executive will not stand on its dignity and the fine print of its drafting, which often turns out to be defective. That would make it more difficult to come to an accommodation about the bill.
There is a willingness among members to work together to help the SQA into the final stages of its recovery. That will has existed from the beginning. As a member who was involved in the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's inquiry into the SQA, I know how much we worked together on that matter. Let us hope that that partnership will continue through stage 2 into stage 3 of the bill and that it will not be turned off by an approach from ministers or civil servants that is too picky or stands too much on their dignity. It would be nice to think that we could all make the bill a bit better than it is.
The Scottish Conservative and Unionist group welcomes—[Interruption.]
I am not sure whether I will allow extra time for Mr Jenkins's microphone falling off.
I am not sure that I will need it. The Conservatives welcome the Scottish Qualifications Authority Bill. It was to the great relief of not only the pupils, but of the then Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs and of the First Minister of the time that the exam diet of 2001 was completed successfully. However, some unfinished business remained: governance. It is therefore appropriate that the bill has been introduced to tidy up the organisation of the SQA.
It is worth recalling that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee both recommended in their inquiries that the organisation's governance model should not be altered radically.
Moreover, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee specifically rejected the adoption of agency status because of the impact that that would have on the independence of exams and the potential political interference that might result from it. The convener of that committee might wish to comment on that later.
Mike Russell was quite right to say that the gold standard of Scottish education and its exam process must be retained. I would be concerned by the prospect of ministers—of whatever party, at whatever time in the future—undermining that gold standard by their own actions, so I am pleased to hear of Mike Russell's conversion on the issue thanks to the SQA chairman, Professor John Ward.
We welcome the changes to the set-up of the SQA board. It is proper that the board will be an organisation that draws on experience, that seeks to provide good management and that is not a representative body, as the old board was. It is clear that the old SQA board had a number of difficulties. In particular, there was a question about where the loyalties of a number of board members might lie. That is not to demean the work that those board members did or to disparage their contributions. However, it is invidious to place a conflict of interests upon people if they are seen, at least by such groups' members, to represent trade unions or interest groups—in other words, the stakeholders of the SQA—while acting as board members who properly perform the duty and function of putting the SQA's interests first. We must avoid such conflicts of interests in setting up such public bodies.
By having a representative council, we will ensure that all the organisations that are represented on it—including employers, school boards, teachers, head teachers, the General Teaching Council for Scotland, lecturers and college principals—are freer to speak, because they will not be acting also as board representatives, with the responsibilities that that carries. I therefore welcome the structure that is proposed in the bill.
It has been said that there might be a place on the new board for a member of staff, almost as a staff representative. There, again, lies the difficulty that we would be asking somebody to be a staff representative, but also to fulfil the functions of their role as board member, and to be responsible in doing so. At times, that person might not even be able to report back to fellow staff because of the confidentiality that might be involved in being a board member. That would place such a member of staff in great difficulty.
I think that the proper place for staff representation outside the trade unions—which exist to represent teachers and other organisations—is in the advisory council. I therefore welcome the minister's saying that she is not yet convinced of the proposals in that connection.
On the confidentiality aspect of staff members' being on boards, there are examples of other organisations where that does work. I wish to press Mr Monteith on that. Why does he think that a staff member would find it difficult to observe rules of confidentiality? It happens in other walks of life.
The member says, "It happens in other walks of life." That does not necessarily mean that such arrangements work efficiently and well, nor does it mean that the organisations concerned have at any time confronted issues where confidentiality has been a problem. However, it is undoubtedly the case that it could be. I think it proper and better that, in public bodies, we remove such an area of doubt. As long as the channels are in place, we can be satisfied. We should also draw a slight distinction.
I will carry on if Mike Russell does not mind. We have discussed in the Education, Culture and Sport Committee such organisations as Scottish Opera and Scottish Ballet, and how they might benefit from having artists' representation on their respective boards. There are two subtle distinctions to be drawn. The first is the fact that the SQA board is smaller and tighter; the second is the fact that, in this case, we are debating legislation. Organisations or companies should be free to determine for themselves what courses of action they take; I do not believe that it is for us to lay down in legislation how those courses of action are taken. That is where it is more appropriate for the minister to take a view.
We regard the bill as timely. It is well structured and should provide what is required to ensure that the SQA is properly run and progresses—not just for schools, but for colleges. The SQA must respond to the demands not just of exams but of serving new clients. We hope that it will export expertise and knowledge abroad to England and other places. We see the bill as representing a new beginning for the SQA and we are happy to support it.
I thank Mr Monteith for his assistance with my lectern. On the previous occasion when I tried to lift a lectern, I jammed Jamie Stone's finger in it.
Well done.
That is a disgraceful remark.
In future, I will let other people put my lectern in position for me.
My colleagues are sympathetic people and I know that they will be saddened to learn that on Saturday night I broke a tooth while eating a curry. I do not know how I did it, but I suffered hugely for about two and a half days, before being treated by the dentist on Tuesday morning. Within a few hours, something that had dominated my life for 48 hours was forgotten altogether, and it is now difficult for me to recall how badly I felt about it. I cite that incident in an attempt to help us remember how traumatic the events of August 2000 were at the time and to caution against allowing those memories to fade into the distance.
The dramatic events of August 2000 affected thousands of our young people at a crucial moment in their lives. They affected not only youngsters whose results were missing, but—as Michael Russell said—everyone who was involved in this area of Scottish education. They threatened to call into question the value of the awards and the reliability of the whole awards system. Nothing could have been more damaging if remedial action had not been taken to stabilise the situation by the time that results were issued in 2001.
The Education, Culture and Sport Committee discovered, during its consideration of the crisis, that many contributory factors came together to cause a sort of paralysis or corporate denial in the administration of the SQA. Those factors included the difficult merger between the Scottish Examination Board and the Scottish Vocational Education Council, with their split sites and different cultures; the incompatibility of information technology systems; and the massive task of administering a hugely bureaucratic, controversial and—I still believe—rather unsatisfactory higher still examination regime. There came a point at which SQA officials seemed genuinely unaware of the extent of the problems or unable to face up to the truth of the situation.
That brings me to the bill. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee indicated that it did not believe that the system of governance of the SQA was the prime reason for the crisis, but it is certainly true that the governance structures that were in place seemed unable to influence events or to respond to warning signs adequately and effectively. The board was unwieldy, it met only a few times a year and, although it was peopled by legitimate stakeholders, in some ways it was not a sharply focused organisation. Furthermore, at the time of the crisis there was uncertainty about the relationship between ministers and the SQA, which meant that until very close to the examination diet assurances that came from the chief executive and other officers were accepted at face value, both by ministers and by members of the board.
The bill seeks, very sensibly, to create a more focused and responsive structure of governance for the SQA. There will be a smaller, leaner, more professional board that will meet more frequently, that will have expertise in management and that will have a close working relationship with the chief executive and his team. The new board will have to take account of the views of the newly formed advisory council, which will be chaired by a member of the SQA board. The structure should provide focus, informed discussion and the ability to respond to issues and concerns that are raised. The whole organisation should provide a network of cross-checking and accountability in the work of the SQA.
As Cathy Jamieson said, under the new regime ministers will have direct powers to make regulations in relation to the SQA's procedures—for example, the procedures for meetings. Ministers will be able to make provisions that would allow a representative of Scottish ministers to participate in meetings of the SQA or its committees.
Properly implemented, those provisions should ensure that the lines of communication are clear and effective. Problems such as those that we experienced in 2000 should never again be allowed to develop beyond remedy before they are attended to. For that reason, I am happy to give the Liberal Democrats' full support to the principles of the bill at stage 1.
In the meantime, I will raise one or two matters for consideration. The first is a point of interest. I wonder whether Cathy Jamieson's presence here indicates that she will be the lead minister in the Executive's contact with the SQA, given that the SQA's business goes much wider than school education and impacts on the remit of other ministers.
My colleague Alex Neil will confirm—as will the minister—that responsibility for the SQA was taken away from the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning shortly after the crisis broke. Therefore, Cathy Jamieson is responsible, as was her predecessor and even his predecessor—education ministers come and go more often than Edinburgh buses.
As a teacher, I think of the SQA—as I thought of the SEB—as the group that runs the school exams, but it is clearly a much wider organisation with many more branches and activities than that. I simply wonder whether "Scottish ministers" refers to several Scottish ministers or to Cathy Jamieson on her own.
I will not spend time on the composition of the board or on a discussion of numbers or staff representation. We have covered all that well enough.
A more substantial point is that the bill is not specific about the size and composition of the advisory council. I agree that such details need not be included in the bill—I would not want them to be there—but I raise the matter in the context of the size and complexity of the SQA and all its works. I have residual worries about the difficulties that arose in resolving the cultural differences between the SEB and SCOTVEC. I am still worried about the bureaucratic nature of the higher still assessment regime among other things. The SQA is a large and complex organisation.
I was reassured by the evidence that the committee heard about the management and mechanisms that the SQA is putting in place. We must acknowledge the wide variety of different interests among all those who consider themselves to be stakeholders in the work of the SQA. The advisory council will be a crucial element in the new governance structure, but it will not be easy to avoid the formation of another large council. There are potential difficulties in having a large amorphous group that is made up of representatives of many special interests, each of which is important. Potential stakeholders are the director of education and the local authorities involved, as well as the others that Brian Monteith mentioned. I worry that we might recreate another board of that sort. I do not know the answer to that potential problem; there are so many potential stakeholders, that the organisation might end up being very big. I raise the matter for consideration.
In my view, it will be important for the advisory council to have good lines of communication with the internal advisory boards and sectoral interests within the SQA. As the bill requires, it will be important for the advisory council to consult a wide range of interests and to have regard to representations that are made to it. The advisory council is crucial to the good working of the bill.
Having made those minor points, I reaffirm my support for the aims and principles of the bill.
We will get everyone in if speeches are kept to four minutes.
The bill is a good example of the Executive taking up and implementing, almost word for word, the work of a committee. That gives the lie to those who say that the committees have no influence on the Executive or the Parliament. I commend the Executive for taking our work and putting it into legislation.
I suspect that the problems that we found in the SQA are fairly common in agencies of its kind. I hope that the new structure will become an exemplar for the kind of constitution that future boards will adopt, with the management function divided from the stakeholder function. One of the central problems of the SQA board was that it did not see itself primarily as a management board that was there to run the organisation efficiently and effectively. The board saw itself primarily as a representative organisation—albeit that it met only once a quarter—with people round the table representing the interests of their organisations rather than giving primacy to the interests of the SQA.
Directors of boards of organisations in the private sector have a statutory obligation to put the interests of that organisation first when they are sitting round the table. I suspect that we are reaching the stage at which that statutory obligation might have to be extended to the public sector.
I mention in passing that I think that Learning and Teaching Scotland, which was formed from a merger between the Scottish Council for Educational Technology and the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum, falls into the same problem area as the SQA. I hope that the minister will consider the constitution of that body and make similar proposals to those that she has made for the SQA.
I welcome the fact that the SQA will have a much smaller board. I hope that the board, unlike the last one, will meet regularly—at least monthly—and that the chair will hold management meetings between the board meetings to ensure that the decisions of the board are implemented properly.
The role of the chair is critical and it needs to be made clear that, although the chair might be part-time, he or she has an executive responsibility to the board and to the minister. The key issue is the management expertise and experience of the members of the board. It is not necessary for the members to have come from the education sector. Indeed, I argue that a substantial share of the board members should come from other sectors and bring the best of management experience and expertise to the SQA.
There are three issues about the advisory council that I would like the minister and the committee to consider at stage 2. First, too much detail about the advisory council will be dealt with in secondary legislation. There is a need for more detail in the bill, particularly on the constitution and membership of the advisory council. Secondly, I question the wisdom of the convener of the advisory council being a member of the board. The danger is that he or she will go to the board to represent the advisory council rather than remaining totally independent. That issue needs to be explored at stage 2. Thirdly, the advisory council should have an independent secretariat and should not rely on the board for its secretariat. That should be built into the bill. I raised that point with the minister earlier.
I hope that my suggestions are useful and that they will be taken on board.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in today's debate. As a member of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, I was involved with the original report into the governance of the Scottish Qualifications Authority and I welcome the bill.
I say in response to my colleague Alex Neil that the committee believed that the governance of the SQA
"was not the primary factor in the failure of that organisation, rather it was a failure of management."
The committee also believed that improvements could be made
"in the governance arrangements to help avert a repetition of the difficulties experienced"
and everyone has been alluding to what happened in the summer of 2000.
The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee concentrated, rightly, on the governance of the SQA. The committee concluded, as have other members, that the SQA board was too big and unwieldy. The board had over 20 members, it met far too infrequently, and it contained too many stakeholders as opposed to those with relevant management and government capabilities.
One of the big issues that I noted was that the structures below board level were too complex. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee found that, despite the fact that the SQA had such an elaborate—even byzantine—structure below board level, it failed ultimately to assist in diverting the difficulties that were encountered in the summer of 2000. Too many people were involved and there were too many layers and too many levels. The recommendation to set up an advisory council will go a long way towards clarifying that position.
The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee is pleased to note that the bill addresses the issues that it raised. The proposal to move to a board that is made up of between seven and nine members is in line with the committee's recommendations. We believe that the board's size should be reduced, in line with current management thinking.
When Esther Roberton from the Scottish Further Education Funding Council gave evidence to the committee, she said that she was struck by the difference between, on the one hand, the SQA and, on the other hand, SFEFC and Chris Masters's organisation, the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council. The latter two organisations had small councils that were appointed by ministers and a strong sense of corporate collective governance emerged quickly. Deloitte & Touche also recommended a reduction in the size of the board to facilitate more effective management.
The bill proposes that all board members be appointed by ministers. That pleases me, because the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee found that stronger monitoring by ministers was necessary.
The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee recommended that the SQA board should meet monthly rather than quarterly. I am happy to see that that recommendation is mentioned in the bill's policy memorandum. We made that recommendation because we saw that there were failures in having quarterly meetings, but we have to allow the board flexibility. I welcome the proposal in the bill.
I welcome the introduction of the advisory council to advise the SQA. The council will remove a lot of the complexities and failures that we saw previously. We need a strong, appropriate and co-ordinated mechanism to enable stakeholders to participate and offer advice. It is important that the SQA maintains close links with stakeholders, that it is focused and that stakeholders have appropriate representation.
The bill recognises the need to maintain stability and improve the governance and management of the SQA. Thanks to the efforts of the many staff who were involved, last year's exam results were delivered successfully. The SQA must build on that performance in future years. The bill sets out that requirement.
I am not a member of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee or the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, both of which dealt with this bill, but I was pleasantly surprised when I read the bill, because it was good to see that ministers will now take some responsibility for the SQA. That should be welcomed by everyone. I feel strongly that one of the major factors in the problems that arose previously was the lack of willingness on the part of ministers to shoulder responsibility when the extent of the corporate denial, to which Ian Jenkins referred, eventually came to light. I hope that the sudden realisation of the duties of government will be infectious, and that we will see a bit more of it from time to time in the chamber. Who knows, perhaps we may even hear an admission from the Government that independence is the best way for Scotland to go.
I welcome the bill. I hope that in changing the structure of the SQA we can also change the culture of that organisation, to ensure that its focus is entirely on the students who are waiting for their results. I wish to mention a group of people who were not mentioned much at the time of the trouble in the SQA. It was not just higher and standard grade students who had problems; in my constituency, many youngsters at further education colleges, who were waiting for the validation of their higher national certificates and higher national diplomas, were also traumatised by the trouble that the SQA was going through. We should remember that the SQA deals with more than just schools. I cannot remember who it was, but a member spoke about the expansion of expertise if we start on the right basis.
The Education, Culture and Sport Committee will scrutinise the bill carefully at stage 2 and I am confident that various concerns that have been raised will be examined. The SQA has a long way to go to restore public confidence and credibility. Much of that work will have to be done by the SQA, but politicians from all parties will play their part in setting up the important regeneration framework. The SNP is broadly in favour of the bill—that is not in doubt—and we will support it today. Our members on the Education, Culture and Sport Committee—Irene McGugan and Mike Russell—will ensure, along with other members, that the bill is scrutinised properly and that the Executive's plans are examined.
One or two issues need to be examined, and I ask the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to examine them in detail. One of those issues, which was mentioned by Alex Neil, concerns the advisory council. It looks as if the advisory council will be governed largely by secondary legislation, and that concerns me. I tend to go on about secondary legislation all the time, because we end up dealing with a lot of secondary legislation from the legislation that is passed by this Parliament. I have heard it said by ministers and their advisers that that is normal. Well, what is normal? We have been here for three years, and we should determine what is normal. Let us consider having more primary legislation, because if we leave too much power in the hands of ministers with regard to secondary legislation, we must be aware that there is no guarantee that the ministers who are here today will be the ones who introduce the secondary legislation.
Whom does the minister have in mind to be members of the advisory council? That is important. I assume that we are talking about people such as university and teaching profession representatives. There may be an argument for enshrining one or two such appointments in the bill. We should know the ministerial intent.
I have other concerns, but my time is running out. I am sure that those matters will be addressed at stage 2. I reiterate that the SNP is broadly in favour of the bill. I look forward to its progression through the Parliament.
Along with Ian Jenkins—the lectern collapser who is sitting on my right—I was a member of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee when the SQA events happened. I remember well how awful the situation was. The current consensus in the chamber is good. The bill is workmanlike and shows how the Parliament can do things rather better.
I agree very much with Mike Russell's suggestion of having an SQA staff member on the SQA's board. I am sorry that Mike Russell is not in the chamber at present. Despite what Brian Monteith said, I say to the minister that some models could make that proposal workable.
When Ian Jenkins, Mike Russell, Nicola Sturgeon and I, among others, went to the SQA's premises in Dalkeith, morale was dire. People told us up front that the situation was desperate and that they were gutted. The bill will rebuild much of that morale, but one way of underpinning our intention would be to put a staff member on the SQA's board. I ask the minister to consider that.
I am also taken by what Mike Russell said about information technology. He was right to say that when we went to the premises in Dalkeith, there were stacks of papers in pigeonholes—more than I could have believed possible. Curiously enough, many organisations are moving towards being paperless, and even the Parliament might be paperless one day. When the way to get ahead in the world is to use IT to maximum effect, we should keep the idea at the back of our minds that, one day, work could be done on screens and saved to disks, for example. That would get rid of that damn paper. Members can imagine the dangers from fire or something else going wrong at present. Information technology exists and is shifting fast. Mike Russell is right that we should think about that.
I am taken by what Alex Neil said about whether the convener of the advisory council should be a member of the SQA's board. He said that the convener could be the advisory council's representative on the board. More dangerous still, he could be the board's representative on the advisory council. That could undermine the council's independence.
I mentioned the morale of SQA staff. We all know that our teaching profession, too, was in a dire state at that time. We must raise its morale again. Last year's diet was a success, and good work has been done, but I am taken by Linda Fabiani's request to hear more about the structure of the advisory council. The litmus test that I will apply is whether the teaching profession, whose people are at the chalkface, is well represented.
Mike Russell mentioned flexibility, which must be supplied. In essence, the bill is a worthwhile piece of work. I am no longer involved in the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, but once upon a time I was, and I will continue to take an interest in the bill at stage 2. What we have done so far is good. Improvements can be made. It behoves all of us to talk to the minister reasonably, as we have done today, to polish further this good piece of work.
I will make just a few brief comments on the subject, as we are near the end of the debate. We heard several references to paper in the SQA. Jamie Stone, Mike Russell and Brian Monteith referred to the potential role of IT systems. After 30 years in computer systems, I still spend much time advising considerable caution, particularly with such systems.
We can successfully convert to IT the kind of system that we are talking about only if we put in place responsible, accountable, trained and qualified IT people to do it. One of the problems that the SQA encountered was that it did not have such people in place. A consequence of that—and I would not say that it was the fault of the SQA or the minister—was that the people who were running the IT department were not senior enough and did not have enough confidence to say that their part of the merging of the Scottish Examination Board and the Scottish Vocational Education Council was not working as it should have.
Does Mr Stevenson accept that what he is saying about the IT in the SQA is different from what Mike Russell and I are talking about, which is to do with using IT in the examination process?
I am happy to accept that. I am merely sounding a note of caution.
When we are undertaking major programmes of change, we should bring someone in from outside the system to run the programmes. Speaking with hindsight, at the core of many of the difficulties that were experienced in the SQA was the fact that there was no one who was clearly identified to run the change programme.
Mike Russell and Brian Monteith talked about the destruction of papers. I have a constituent who was unable to conclude an appeal on behalf of his daughter because the papers had been destroyed. It is certainly worth revisiting the issue of returning people's scripts, microfilming them or preserving them by some other mechanism, although I admit that the problem affects only a small number of people.
As the "Register of Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament" shows, I spend a little bit of my time lecturing postgraduate and honours-year students at Heriot-Watt University on management information systems. I am grateful to the Scottish Parliament for the intense and professional way in which it has examined the SQA. That has provided a rich seam of material for my students. It is a tribute to the Scottish Parliament, the parties in it and the Executive that we have been able to deal with this difficult issue thoroughly and professionally and achieve an outcome that will be welcomed by everyone in Scotland.
We are absolutely on time so we will have no slack during the winding-up speeches. I call Jackie Baillie.
I will start by abusing the goodwill of the Presiding Officer by suggesting that we should send our best wishes to Karen Gillon, the convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, who will, in the next week, deliver a new member of the Gillon family.
Can the member guarantee that time scale?
I think that that is a safe prophecy.
I welcome the Scottish Qualifications Authority Bill, which will enhance the qualifications system for schools, colleges, employers and, most importantly, for our young people and older students. Its purpose is also to provide some much-needed stability, which is welcome.
We have all recognised the difficulties that were experienced during the examination diet of 2000, particularly the chaotic consequences for students and their subsequent further and higher education applications. We need to restore public confidence in the SQA, whose critical function for Scottish education has been significantly undermined.
What were the causes of the failure? Elaborate and over-complicated systems of governance that inhibited the SQA's ability to react to crisis; excessive board size, which did not help to provide a coherent or collective response; and a communications failure caused, in part, by the fact that meetings were infrequent and irregular. While stakeholder interests deserve to be represented, they were perhaps misplaced on the board of the SQA, where specific skills and experience are required for competent management.
There was a very welcome improvement in the 2001 diet, which demonstrates the future scope for success in the SQA.
There is much to be welcomed in the bill, not least because it builds on the lessons that have been learned. The provision for coherent SQA governance structures and the power for ministers to regulate its proceedings have received general support. Directives for board appointments are also very valuable, as they can promote the representation of financial, legal, classroom and IT experience and human resource skills as useful factors in SQA governance.
As the minister has already heard, the committee also felt strongly—and I suspect continues to feel strongly—that there should be an employee representative on the board, which would ensure that employees' views are considered directly and without any filtering. Without the staff's time and commitment, the 2001 diet would not have been a success. They can make a valuable contribution that should not be lost. It is also worth noting that many of the less senior staff at the SQA were reporting problems prior to the 2000 diet; however, that message did not get through. I am sure that the minister will want to reflect further on the matter before we reach stage 2.
I want to turn quickly to the advisory council. The system of checks and balances will promote accountability and transparency and I welcome the fact that the council's meetings will be open to public scrutiny. The council's function in bringing together all the stakeholders will directly uphold and maintain standards within the SQA.
The committee had no difficulty in supporting the bill's general principles. However, a few issues were raised at stage 1 that I am sure the ministers will reflect on before stage 2 commences. I have already mentioned employee representation. I should also mention the apparent confusion about who does what, and that some clarification of the advisory council's role in relation to the SQA board or the Executive would be helpful. A further question is whether the SQA should simply have regard to the advisory council's advice. The committee clearly felt that there should be a duty to respond, although it recognised that the ultimate responsibility for governance must and should remain with the SQA board.
Although I acknowledge some of the assurances that the minister has given, it was communication—or the lack of it—that underpinned the problems in the past. We cannot afford to take any chances with communication in the future. I welcome the bill's principles, but look forward to our stage 2 discussions.
Perhaps I had too large a lunch, but there is a rather soporific atmosphere in the chamber this afternoon. Although the debate has been worthy, the subject is perhaps not the most exciting. Indeed, we seem to have had a recent run of fairly uncontroversial education bills on Thursday afternoons.
Like Linda Fabiani, I am not a member of either the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee or the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. However, I commend the work of both committees in making representations to the ministers on the bill. As my colleague Brian Monteith said, we consider this to be a timely and necessary bill and welcome it, especially given the recent, troubled history of the SQA. Ian Jenkins and other members have referred to the debacle of the 2000 diet in the SQA, and we join Ian in hoping that the new structure will help to ensure that such a situation does not happen again.
I will make one or two brief points. As Alex Neil said, one of the key points is the frequency of meetings. The evidence shows that the lack of frequent meetings led to the previous problems. Although I understand the need for flexibility, it might make sense to have more regular meetings. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee recommended that they should be held monthly. I certainly think that some sort of regular pattern must be specified.
Jamie Stone, Stewart Stevenson and others talked about moving towards a paperless office. I have to declare a small interest in the matter. Before I became an MSP, I was a solicitor, and one of my jobs was to negotiate with the SQA a lease on behalf of landlords of storage space in Dalkeith so that the agency could store all its paperwork. So having too much paper is not always a bad thing, especially if one is a landlord. In this case, it was the Scottish Mining Museum at Newtongrange that was glad of the extra income.
By all means, let us move towards paperless offices, but we should bear it in mind that paper is not always a bad thing. The related question of the returning of marked scripts must be considered. That happens in England—not all ideas that come out of England are bad—and it is something that we should consider doing here too.
The issue of the advisory council should be fleshed out a little—other speakers referred to that. Ian Jenkins mentioned that more information is required on the composition of the council. There is a statutory duty for the SQA and the advisory council to consult each other—I would like to hear from the ministers how they see that relationship developing. Is the advisory council to be in effect a watchdog? It is important that the relationship is one of mutual co-operation.
I welcome the fact that part-privatisation in future has not been ruled out in the policy memorandum. Contracting out and the market testing of individual functions have not been ruled out either.
Privatisation was ruled out by the minister.
It has not been ruled out in the policy memorandum. We have streaming one day and privatisation the next—who knows where we will end up?
I endorse what Brian Monteith said earlier. The Conservatives welcome the bill.
There has been fairly general agreement this afternoon that the changes promoted will bring about the improvements that are necessary in the structure of the SQA, with a board that focuses on governance and management issues and an advisory council as a mechanism for participation.
If the SQA is to restore credibility in the immediate delivery of its core processes, and develop confidence beyond that, it is important that the legislation is effective. Many of those who gave evidence to the committee underlined the fact that the experiences of 2001 did not mean that the SQA's reputation was restored or that confidence had returned to the level that existed prior to 2000. Some of that was eloquently expressed by members of the youth parliament in its submission to the committee. We should not forget that everything that we do today is about ensuring that the exam process is as robust as it can be in future for the sake of all those people—young and not so young—whose future depends to a large extent on its efficiency.
I welcome the fact that the chair of the advisory council will be a member of the board. That was my interpretation. I noted that Ian Jenkins thought that a member of the board would become the head of the advisory council. I wonder which way round it will be. I hope that it is the former, because that would give a greater role to the council and greater priority to its work. Perhaps the minister could clarify that.
At a later stage it will be important to address the extent to which the advisory council can influence decisions. The establishment of the council is intended to ensure that stakeholders' views and advice are available to inform the SQA's decisions. However, as has been highlighted previously, there is no duty on the board to respond to such advice. As Jackie Baillie said, we recognise that governance remains with the board, but the committee felt strongly that there should be a requirement on it to respond to advice from the council.
I would like to underline one more issue, which is that, with one exception, members of the committee supported the notion that there should be an SQA staff representative on the board. That seemed to fit well with the genuine attempt to involve staff, since real issues of communication were identified in the inquiries that followed the events of 2000. That mechanism would not only improve communication but promote involvement in decision-making structures. That is important, and I hope that the minister will give some consideration to that, prior to stage 2.
With those provisos, the SNP supports the general principles of the bill.
I call Nicol Stephen to wind up the debate for the Executive. You have until 16:59, minister.
I welcome the Opposition front-bench contributions to the debate, which have all been broadly supportive of the core elements of the bill. Some relatively minor but important issues were raised, and I will address them during my speech.
Mike Russell started by talking about a return to the gold standard. I reflected on those comments during the debate, and I wonder whether it was that view that was at the heart of our initial problems with the SQA. We somehow believed that we had the gold standard, but the gold standard, as we all know, became outdated and is now no longer used in international financial dealings. We have realised that not only do we want to restore an organisation that can deliver an effective exam system, but we must go beyond that, stretching for a new, modern standard of excellence, because the old system ultimately failed. Our objective is to achieve a modern, efficient, high-quality organisation. We realise that that will not be done through legislation alone, and that a great number of people will have to make a huge effort to continue to drive forward many of the issues that members have mentioned, in the management of resources and in the use of new technologies.
When we began to consider the matter, Mike Russell and some of his colleagues objected to the proposals for the future of the SQA and wanted it to be brought closer to ministers through the creation of an Executive agency. It would be wrong to go into the details of that debate now, but I welcome his considered change of heart on the issue.
Mr Russell referred to Michael O'Neill, who said that the Executive should be more involved in the SQA than in the average NDPB. We take those remarks on board. Indeed, we live those remarks daily, weekly and monthly. We have regular meetings at officer level, and officials from the Executive are meeting the SQA this afternoon. We also continue to have regular meetings at ministerial level with John Ward and with David Fraser, the new chief executive. That hands-on approach will continue for a time, and will ensure that the SQA makes the changes that are needed to allow it to become—in due course and at the appropriate time—more like a normal NDPB. That will be part of its development process.
Everyone in the chamber must be committed to playing their role in helping to create the efficient exams organisation that we want for Scotland.
I am grateful for that remark, as it moves the debate to a position where supervision of what is, at this stage, a slightly hybrid body can return to normal over time. Part of the essential nature of that process is the operation of the SQA as a public sector organisation. The minister will recall that I raised the matter in the Education, Culture and Sport Committee with him and with Professor John Ward. I told Professor Ward:
"The service should be delivered by a public sector organisation."
He replied:
"Absolutely."—[Official Report, Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 26 February 2002; c 3089.]
In the light of Murdo Fraser's comments—Murdo Fraser was not at any of those meetings—will the minister confirm that privatisation is not on the agenda?
I am happy to confirm that. As I recall, I confirmed that to the committee and I am happy to repeat that confirmation now.
I turn now to the role of the proposed advisory council. I recognise that there are issues relating to the advisory council that still have to be resolved. I am grateful for the guidance and suggestions that I have had from members. However, I should point out that we have a role model for the advisory council in the ministerial review group on the SQA, which I have been chairing. That is not the case with many of the new organisations that we establish through legislation. The ministerial group has been sitting since the end of 2000 and has been working well.
As Mike Russell said, it is crucial that we create a flexible structure that is able to develop and innovate, that will remain effectively managed with rigorous standards and quality control and that can move forward into the sort of agenda that many members have touched on this afternoon.
One of the strong views of the ministerial review group, which foreshadows the advisory council, was on the importance of the simplification of assessment. That is still a big challenge for the SQA and other aspects of the exam system.
I welcome Brian Monteith's remarks and his support for the bill. More robustly than any other member, he defended the Executive's current position on staff representation on the board. In case he single-handedly tilted the balance of the argument a bit too far, I want to make the position clear. At the committee stage, I said that we would consider the issue further. A precedent was put to me in respect of the Water Industry (Scotland) Bill. We are considering the whole issue. We have not shifted our position, but we are keen to encourage staff involvement in the SQA's future. I think that Brian Monteith would align himself with that view. We are not yet convinced that formal appointment to the board is the best way ahead, but we will continue to consider the issue.
For those members who are arriving in the chamber, Ian Jenkins made an interesting analogy involving curry houses and dentists. He spoke about the SQA's responsibilities and the fact that it straddles various Executive departments. I want to make it clear that lead responsibility for the SQA now rests—and will continue to rest—with the Minister for Education and Young People. I understand some of Ian Jenkins's other concerns. The SQA must address many issues in the coming months.
I repeat: the ministerial review group has played a crucial role in representing the views of stakeholders and has covered the further education sector, the schools sector and indeed the views of young people and students. I am convinced that the advisory council, with the right people, will reflect the interests of those key stakeholders and will work well. I compliment the efforts of Alex Neil and the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee in paving the way for the bill. The right people, with good expertise and good experience, are on the board.
The issue of the chairmanship of the advisory council is important, but I do not think that separating the advisory council and the board is a good idea. Of course, there will be constructive tension from time to time, but there must always be a bridge and a link—that was reflected in what Irene McGugan said. Close co-operation, partnership and a genuine understanding between those two organisations is important.
I accept what the minister says. However, will he give serious consideration to the points that Irene McGugan made? It is important that a convener is appointed as convener of the advisory council, and then is appointed to the board, rather than the other way round.
I am happy to consider that suggestion further. We will return to it and others—such as the secretariat of the advisory council—at stage 2. I have no doubt that we will be challenged and probed on such matters through amendments. We will bring forward draft regulations before stage 2 so that the committee is aware of the detail of our proposals.
A final, substantive point was made by Jackie Baillie—I am sure that all members share her good wishes to Karen Gillon, who cannot be present today for the best of reasons. Jackie Baillie's point was about the words "have regard to". She wanted that phrase strengthened so that the SQA board has a duty to respond to advice from the advisory council. Again, we will return to that issue. At the committee stage, John Ward said that he had no problem with Jackie Baillie's suggestions and I indicated a similar view. We want the most effective way of responding to and dealing with the issue.
I conclude by running through the bill's key policy objectives. If the Parliament, the Executive and stakeholders in Scottish education are to be reassured that the SQA is capable of delivering its functions, the organisation must be accountable and open to all of its stakeholders. The bill will ensure that openness and accountability are at the heart of the SQA's governance. I commend the bill to Parliament.