Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, 13 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 13, 2000

Official Report 301KB pdf

---

Scottish Qualifications Authority

Item 4 is the inquiry into the governance of the Scottish Qualifications Authority. You will remember that we agreed to undertake that element of the inquiry as a result of our discussions at the previous meeting. In members' papers there is an explanatory note that sets out where we have got to with these issues, a draft inquiry remit for this committee, a draft work programme and the remit of the inquiry to be undertaken by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.

I met Mary Mulligan, the convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, during our discussions, in which she took part. We agreed the separation of issues: we would look at governance and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee would look at the school qualifications issues and steer away from the governance issues with that exception. That is the position that we have arrived at, and I am seeking the committee's agreement to the inquiry remit that is in the paper in my name. We can then go on to discuss the work programme and its contents. Do members wish to raise any points on the inquiry remit?

I do not have a point to raise on the remit, which I would happily sign up for, but on the paper to which you refer. It did not add anything; in fact it created confusion, certainly in my mind. The last sentence of the paragraph under the heading "Co-ordination with the Education, Culture and Sport Committee" states that that committee

"will examine the internal arrangements of the SQA as well as the link back to the senior management and the Minister."

That is where we see the focus of our inquiry. However, in the paper from the Education, Culture and Sport Committee on its terms of reference it is made clear—or it is qualified, to be more precise—that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's role would be

"to examine the role of the Executive, and its relationship with the SQA"

specifically

"in relation to the events around the school exam results".

That seemed to us to be a better clarification than was contained in the covering paper. Otherwise, there would be a considerable degree of duplication and replication if both committees were doing the same thing in relation to that link back to senior management and the minister. We have to clarify where the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's terms of reference start and finish and ours begin.

Where are we in respect of the request about documents that I understand was made after our last meeting?

We will come back to that in a moment, Fergus. First we will deal with matters relating to the remit of the two committees.

I understood that this committee would consider the impact on the further and higher education sector. That has not been noted, but it is important that we do that.

The wording of the bullet point in the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's remit that Allan Wilson referred to reflects a specific issue that I raised with Mary Mulligan about the fact that the wording was much too loose at that point and might lead to her committee roaming into areas to do with SQA governance. I take the same view as Allan about that bullet point, which is the bit that matters in the remit of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. That committee is examining the school qualifications issue and how it relates to ministers and that is all. It is not examining issues of governance. If the paragraph on the covering paper is unclear, it does not matter, as that paper has no standing.

On Marilyn Livingstone's point about higher and further education, my interpretation of where the committee left things was that we could not quite determine how we could tackle that input into the inquiry as things stood. We decided that we would keep an eye on that in the course of the inquiry to guarantee that we did not lose sight of the impact on that sector. That is why the remit has been set up as it has. If we want to make a specific reference to an examination of the further and higher education sector, we will have to take evidence from a group of people who will also be giving evidence to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. The reporter that we have at the meetings of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee—you, Marilyn—will be able to represent our interests in that respect. I will take specific proposals if people want me to, but that was how I envisioned the matter being handled.

I do not want the issue to be lost. Once the inquiry has been completed and the issues are sorted out, the impact on further education institutions could be significant. If all the institutions fish for students from the same pool, what will the impact be further down the line if more students are at the universities? We should take that issue on board, but I do not know how we can do that.

We might be able to do that.

I might be able to help. Like Marilyn Livingstone, I wondered about the omission of that from the remit because I expressly covered that point at our previous meeting.

The observation that I want to make, which I hope is helpful, is that I understand that the ramifications for our higher and further education institutions will not be confined merely to this year and admissions for this October but will run into next year and affect the academic year starting in October 2001. That is because pupils whose appeals are under way will have to submit applications for entry to university next year and may have to do so on the basis of undetermined appeals. In those cases, certain schools have expressed their willingness to accompany those applications with a personal statement of belief and conviction in the pupil.

However, it occurred to me that, for that reason, it might be better to defer consideration of the impact on the further and higher education sector until we deal with the issue of undetermined appeals, which, for reasons of public credibility, it is important that this committee deals with and reports back on as quickly as possible.

I do not have a problem with that approach, but I am concerned about funding. I would like to know whether funding will be affected, as that will impact on students who may be on a two-year HND course and want to go on to university. If they do not take up a place at college, college funding could be affected for two years. However, I agree with Annabel Goldie. That area of inquiry could wait.

That has been put on the record. The impact on further and higher education will be examined when that issue is brought before the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.

There is a bit of confusion about the remits of the two inquiries. The remit of the inquiry to be conducted by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee includes

"the impact on school pupils, and on their future prospects, of the performance of the SQA in issuing qualifications certificates this year".

Marilyn Livingstone's point is that the SQA has an impact on further education colleges, where it issues certificates, and, I suspect, on the higher education sector in certain circumstances. Perhaps that point should be incorporated under point 2 of our inquiry remit, in order to make specific reference to our role in examining the confusion and difficulties in the further and higher education sector.

I accept the points that have been made, but we are trying to produce a remit for our inquiry, which will consider predominantly the governance of the SQA, as that issue is most directly related to the remit of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.

If we were to go into an analysis of the further and higher education implications of accreditation, there is a danger that we would be more than likely to have to go through much the same process as the Education, Culture and Sport Committee will go through in relation to school qualifications. At this stage, it is difficult to see how we would not end up in that position. I fear that we would end up doing two inquiries about different sectors.

We must examine what the Education, Culture and Sport Committee does, and we will have a reporter on that committee's inquiry in order to ensure that we do not lose sight of the further and higher education sector.

While the Education, Culture and Sport Committee is, quite rightly, examining the impact on schools and school pupils, I want the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee to keep in mind the necessity of examining the impact on people who leave school.

I absolutely accept that point—we will continue to consider that area in our work, both in this inquiry and in future inquiries.

Does that mean that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee will consider the position of people who leave school?

The Education, Culture and Sport Committee will examine predominantly school qualifications, where the greater problem has been.

Will that committee consider the follow-through?

No.

Not at all?

No.

Does not that—

Wait a minute. I am concerned that we will end up conducting exactly the same inquiry on the further and higher education sector as the Education, Culture and Sport Committee will conduct on the school sector if we go down that route. If that happens, we will end up with two inquiries: one into the impact on the further and higher education sector and the other into issues of governance. We went down the route of establishing reporting relationships with the Education, Culture and Sport Committee in order to ensure that we did not lose sight of further and higher education issues.

That is not what is being proposed. We are happy to restrict our remit to the governance of the SQA. However, in doing so, we want to ensure that there is a direct reference to the governance of the SQA and its effect on the further and higher education sector in relation to the impact of issuing qualifications. There is no contradiction in that approach.

We do not want to extend the remit of our inquiry along the lines of the approach that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee is taking. We want to ensure that our inquiry into the arrangements for the governance of the SQA encompasses the further and higher education sector.

I do not understand the problem. We are talking about the governance arrangements for the Scottish Qualifications Authority, not about what it does in relation to the school sector. Nothing is ruled out in that part of the inquiry, and there is nothing specifically targeted on the school sector or on the further and higher education sectors. The examination is of the governance relationship of the SQA with ministers and the Parliament.

In that case, my question is this: are we saying that there is no impact at all on universities and higher education?

Far from it. There is, George, and the point is—

Wait a minute. What has been said repeatedly is that this committee has an interest in two things: the governance relationship of the SQA with ministers and the Parliament, and the impact of the whole situation on further and higher education.

We can address the second matter in one of two ways. We can either send a reporter to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to represent those interests as part of the dialogue or we can do our own inquiry. If we conduct an inquiry ourselves, we will simply duplicate what the Education, Culture and Sport Committee is doing.

So you have agreed, convener, that that committee will conduct that part of the inquiry?

We have a reporter at that committee, representing our interests.

That is all that I was trying to establish. I thought that you were saying that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee was not doing the part of the inquiry on the impact on further and higher education.

The Education, Culture and Sport Committee is examining the whole qualifications process, which affects the higher and further education sector. That sector is our property, which is why we have a reporter at that committee's inquiry.

One emerging point requires clarification. As I understand the remit of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, that committee will consider higher and further education in relation to the effect of the problems on school pupils, who may or may not be able to get into institutions and on to courses.

I think that George Lyon is saying that there is a separate question: have higher and further education institutions found themselves with fewer applicants for either this year or next year? I want that point to be covered and I want it to be the preserve of this committee. However, I think that it is premature to tackle it now. I do not think that it is possible to quantify the primary impact now, never mind the secondary impact for next year.

I wish to put on record that, if there is to be any consideration of where our higher and further education institutions have been left as a consequence of the problems, it is for this committee to investigate that at some point—but I do not feel that that point is just now.

That is the point that I was trying to make. I accept that we have to consider that issue at some stage, even if we do not feel that we can evaluate it now.

I am anxious to come to a close on this question, as we have been at it for a long time.

I just wanted to clarify which committee would be responsible for investigating a matter that occurred to me as I was listening to George Lyon and Annabel Goldie. I understand from anecdotal evidence—which may be correct or incorrect—that there have been problems with the compatibility of the computer systems operated by the SQA with those operated for admissions and registration purposes in further education colleges. There may be a problem with that, but whose job is it to consider that matter through taking evidence as part of the inquiry? Would that fall within our remit or the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's remit?

My view is that it is within the remit of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.

Last week, I pointed out that the majority of students sit the exams dealt with by the SQA through the college system, not through the school system. The impact on college students will be contained within the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's review of the impact on school pupils.

Yes, that will be the case.

The full ramifications will take some time to become apparent, and we cannot know everything now. Would there be value in having a session, or even just part of a session, to gather evidence about the implications for the higher and further education sector as far as they are known at the moment? There might be some immediate effects, particularly on institutions' funding.

We can look at those issues and decide what we want to do when we consider the work programme, a draft of which has been prepared by the clerks.

Are there any specific amendments to the remits that have been suggested? If not, does the committee agree with the inquiry remit that has been circulated in paper EL/00/19/3?

Members indicated agreement.

Fergus Ewing has asked about access to papers. I will ask Simon Watkins to cover that and to talk about the draft work programme.

As a preliminary step, at the end of last week I wrote to our liaison officer in the relevant part of the Executive to ask—in advance of the first meeting, whenever that will be—for papers that relate to the governance of the SQA. We should have those by the end of today. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee, which will carry out the bulk of the work, will seek more general access to all relevant papers—I think that the minister gave a commitment on that in the Parliament. That should cover anything that relates to the wider issues.

I appreciate that most of the papers will go to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, but I presume that we will have access to those papers.

Yes.

Will the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and this committee be consulted on the questions that I feel we cannot really answer at the moment: which documents are relevant and which documents are necessary?

These are often chicken-and-egg issues. If we say to the department that we want to see all the papers that are relevant to the governance of the SQA, I would expect the department to be generous in its interpretation of our request. I would not expect it to be selective in providing documentation, because we need the full picture. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee will have its view on which documentation it needs for its inquiry, but I would expect our committee to be given access to legal documents and to information about directions given, appointment processes, modes of operation, relationships between ministers and the board, relationships between the board and senior officials of the SQA, job descriptions, remits, and so on. One of my concerns about starting the inquiry on Monday 18 September is that I want to see those papers before we start our hearing. Only when we see whatever the department is prepared to offer us will we be able to judge whether the information is anywhere near appropriate.

I am reassured by what you have just said, convener, and I know that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee will be the lead committee. You touched on the timing of our work programme—the first meetings are next week. We have not seen any documents. We have to know what went wrong and how to put it right. To find out what went wrong, we need to see all the internal documents that passed between the SQA, the chief executive and the ministers. Those would include documents that would be specifically covered by the code of conduct as information that would not normally be made public. However, those documents must be made available.

Speaking as a solicitor, I feel that we are in the position of having a trial or a proof, due to begin on 18 September, for which we are expected to carry out an investigation but for which we have received no documents. No solicitor would find himself or herself in such a situation. If he or she did not prepare for a trial or a proof, he or she would rightly be sued. It would be foolhardy, and quite impossible, for us to question intelligently the prospective witnesses from whom we will take evidence until we had had a period, I suggest, of seven days during which we could study all the documents—including the internal documents that were passed between the SQA and the ministers. We need to see what was recommended, when and by whom, and we need to know what action was or was not taken by ministers following recommendations that may have been made by the SQA and/or the civil servants. Those are extremely important areas on which we need categoric assurances from the Executive.

As I think I said at our previous meeting, we need to have information going back a couple of years. We need to ask whether there have been fundamental problems with the SQA in previous years and whether concerns were expressed about the organisation and operation of the SQA in its first two or three years. The anecdotal evidence that I have heard suggests that not all was well in previous years. I take it that we will get access to any documentation that might be relevant to internal problems in previous years—if necessary, since the SQA was set up.

The remit that we have just approved says that we are

"undertaking an inquiry into the governance of the Scottish Qualifications Authority since 1 July 1999",

so we have somewhat time-barred ourselves. We could revisit the remit, but we would have to do so pretty quickly.

On what Fergus Ewing said, it occurred to me that it was probably optimistic to think that we could start our inquiry on 18 September. It would be advantageous to have the documents before we met Mr Ron Tuck and the members of the SQA board on 20 September. I suggest that we speak to the officials of the enterprise and lifelong learning department at that meeting, before we speak to the former chief executive of the SQA and the members of the SQA board. That would help us to make progress.

I agree with Allan Wilson. As Fergus Ewing said, there are difficulties in gaining access to the documentation that we want. We also need to consider what written evidence we will require from witnesses before they come to the committee so that we are prepared before we start asking questions.

Why are we taking evidence from the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and the Scottish Further Education Funding Council? I would have preferred to hear from witnesses from bodies such as the Association of Scottish Colleges and the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals, who could give an indication of the problems that they have experienced in dealing with the SQA. I have anecdotal evidence—admittedly it is from a head teacher—about problems with the SQA in previous years and about its lack of transparency over appeals and other matters. I would prefer to hear from the clients of the SQA.

On access to documentation, I am concerned that we have seen nothing so far. I am not in a position to embark on the inquiry, as I have no knowledge of what documents will be offered. I am sceptical whether, at the first time of asking, we will get every piece of information that we require from the department. Therefore, the meeting that is scheduled for Monday seems a bit premature. Once I have seen the papers from the enterprise and lifelong learning department later today, I will judge whether they are adequate to be issued to the committee and I will decide what further papers should be requested from the department.

On Allan Wilson's suggestion that we combine the evidence-taking session with the department officials and the session with the SQA board and Ron Tuck, I think that that would be too much for one meeting. I do not know where the problems lie. Some of them may lie with the department, so we will need a couple of hours with its officials to work out whether that is the case. Some of the problems may lie with the board and key officials of the SQA, so we will need time with them.

We need to knock the time scale of the inquiry back by a meeting. At the earliest, we can take evidence from the officials of the enterprise and lifelong learning department on Wednesday 20 September. However, a caveat is that that will depend on what I see in the paperwork from the department later this afternoon. Is it agreed that we nudge back the time scale by one meeting?

Members indicated agreement.

I am anxious that we finish taking evidence before the October recess so that we can have a preliminary meeting in private on 4 October about our conclusions. We might have to schedule another meeting between 20 September and 4 October if we want to take evidence from all those who are listed.

The other point related to the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and the Scottish Further Education Funding Council. We included those bodies to allow us to examine the governance relationship between the minister and other non-departmental public bodies in the committee's area of responsibility. The idea was not to examine their experience of school and further education qualifications issues—for that, we would want to talk to Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals—but to ask them about their relationship with ministers and the guidance that they receive. That will enable us to see whether the SQA has been handled differently from the SHEFC and the SFEFC. We want to know whether ministers have been more active, more involved and more directive in their dealings with the further and higher education funding councils than they have been in their dealings with the SQA. That will provide us with a comparison that we can use when we form our conclusions.

I agree with what the convener said about moving things back a week. It might be a typographical error, but I am not sure why we would want to meet on Tuesday 26 September in the afternoon, rather than on our normal meeting day of Wednesday 27 September.

The problem is that availability of broadcasting and official report staff means that there are slots for only five committees on Wednesday morning and the committee has been unable to secure one of the slots. The scheduled time will be the afternoon of Tuesday 26 September. There are clashes with meetings of other committees—the Audit Committee and the Rural Affairs Committee.

I take the point that you made about the SHEFC and the SFEFC. However, it should be possible to take written evidence from those bodies on their structures and to decide from that whether we have anything to learn from the extent to which the funding councils are accountable to the Executive and from the amount of operational control that ministers have over them. I am not sure whether there is a direct parallel with the SQA—the former Scottish Examining Board and the Scottish Vocational Education Council.

Rather than hear about the alternative form of governance that is exemplified by the SHEFC and the SFEFC, as is being suggested, I would be interested to hear from COSHEP and the Association of Scottish Colleges, specifically on issues of governance and the SQA.

I would like to make two points, one of which has already been made by Elaine Murray. Before we question any of the witnesses, it would be extremely helpful to obtain written statements—certainly from the likes of Mr Tuck, about whom we know very little, other than the fact that he has resigned. It would be extremely useful to know what he has to say about the situation before we ask him questions.

It seems highly likely that, after we have taken evidence from everybody else, we will want to re-examine Mr Tuck. It is almost certain that matters will arise in the course of taking evidence from ministers and others who have criticised the regime that operated under Mr Tuck. If that happens, it is essential that we give him the right to reply to any questions that have been raised and to criticisms that have been made of him and his administration.

Would it be possible to ask Mr Tuck to come back to the last meeting for a brief time?

I am in the hands of the committee on that and I do not want to prejudge a decision. The danger is that we prolong the inquiry without providing appropriate input. The committee can consider that again if it feels that that is necessary.

We have to take evidence from COSHEP and the ASC for two reasons. First, that would cover George Lyon's suggestion about examining how things were in the past. Secondly, it would cover Elaine Thomson's point. I agree with the remit, but Fergus Ewing's suggestion would enable us to ask the witnesses whether there were any issues that they wished to raise with the committee.

I draw the discussion to a close. We will alter the date for discussion between the committee and the enterprise and lifelong learning department officials to 20 September, subject to my seeing the papers this afternoon and being satisfied that there is enough information to send to committee members. If I am not satisfied, that will happen subject to my being assured that we will have enough information by tomorrow morning. That will give members nearly a week to consider the papers.

The meetings with the SQA board and Ron Tuck will be separate sessions on the afternoon of Tuesday 26 September. We will have a third session, which will last for an hour on a date to be identified, with the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and the Scottish Further Education Funding Council. We will receive evidence from COSHEP and the Association of Scottish Colleges, also for an hour.

The final session will be with the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and the Minister for Children and Education on 4 October. We will also have a private discussion about the Scottish Qualifications Authority. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

As far as witnesses are concerned, do any members have strong feelings about which officials we should get along from the enterprise and lifelong learning department to the first meeting? There is the head of division, who is responsible for the SQA, but are there any others whom members wish to see?

We certainly want to see the head of division, but we also want to see the people who are involved in the governance relationship—the people who draft letters about board appointments, guidance to the board and guidance to the ministers.

Would that be as well as those in the department who dealt with the SQA on a regular basis and who attended its meetings?

Yes—although I hope that those are the same people; it would be a strange arrangement if they were not.