1. I add the thoughts of my party to those that have already been expressed regarding the incident in Stonehaven today. It is clear that the incident is serious, and it will have affected a number of families across Scotland. We think of them at this time and of the emergency workers who are in attendance.

The past week has been a terrible time for Scotland’s school pupils and a new low for this Government’s handling of our education system. Yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills sought to draw a line under events, but questions still remain. For example, this morning, we spoke with Abby from Prestwick, who had a conditional offer to go to the University of Edinburgh. Her father said that they were initially delighted by Mr Swinney’s U-turn, but they have since discovered that, based on last week’s modified results, the offer from Edinburgh has been withdrawn. Yesterday, Mr Swinney said that more university places would be created in order to stop university students being

“crowded out of a place that they would otherwise have been awarded.”—[

Official Report

, 11 August 2020; c 32.]

However, that is not a guarantee of a place on Abby’s chosen course. Therefore, will the First Minister write today to every Scottish university to make it clear that they must now honour every conditional offer that they made to students on their projected grades?

Members understand that in no year can the Government guarantee a place at university for every young person. However, we are absolutely determined to make sure that young people are not disadvantaged this year. Obviously, I am not able to talk in detail about individual cases, but any member who wants to raise individual cases should do so, and we will seek to respond as fully as we can.

The education secretary has already been in discussions with universities. We are determined that not only will those who have the grades and have had offers of places get those places but that, given yesterday’s decision—which has been welcomed by pupils and parents across the country—young people will not be crowded out of places. Discussions are on-going to ensure that additional places will be available at our universities. That is a welcome move. Given the massive disadvantages that young people—not just those who were to sit exams but all young people across the country—have suffered in the past five months as a result of Covid, that is a positive signal to them of the determination of the Government and the whole country to ensure that, in the future, they have the opportunities that they richly deserve.

Frankly, the idea that, on 12 August, which is more than a week after results were issued, pupils are still not clear about what is happening with university places is ridiculous. One way to build back trust is to be more transparent.

When the last Scottish Qualifications Authority fiasco happened in 2000, Nicola Sturgeon was in Opposition. She insisted then that the then education secretary

“give the Parliament a categoric assurance that he will make available ... all papers, correspondence and notes of meetings and of phone calls within his department and between his department and the SQA since the start of this year”.—[

Official Report

, 6 September 2000; c 27.]

The same thing needs to happen now. We know that this Government does not have the best record of making documents available, but will the First Minister give that guarantee today, and will she start by confirming that the education secretary formally backed the SQA’s deeply flawed exam model?

The First Minister:

On the issue of university places, in any year, the process of university admissions and clearing goes on for a period of time. This year, we will ensure that more places are available for young people. That is a good and positive thing that should be welcomed across the country.

With regard to the responsibilities and role of the SQA and the Government, we will make available to Parliament whatever Parliament wants. However, perhaps understandably, given experiences with Governments elsewhere, the Opposition is maybe struggling to grasp a key element of the situation. The Government is not trying to pass responsibility to the SQA; the Government is taking responsibility itself.

Ruth Davidson referred to previous incidents with the SQA, which I remember well. However, one thing that is different now is that we are living through a global pandemic. We were not able to have scheduled exams this year; therefore, we had to put in place an alternative process. We asked the SQA to put in place a process that maintained comparable standards with previous years. The SQA did that but, given the impact on young people and that we did not want them to feel that their future has been determined by an algorithm rather than by their performance, we have made the judgment to come to a different conclusion. The Government has taken responsibility for that. We have acted with the best of intentions. However, when we judge that we have got it wrong, we are big enough to say that we got it wrong, to apologise to young people, and to put it right. That is what people across the country want to see.

The situation will affect every Government in the United Kingdom—we will no doubt see that tomorrow, when the A-level results for England and Wales are published. However, we will also see whether Governments elsewhere have the willingness to admit that they might have got it wrong and put it right comprehensively in the way that this Government has done.

I am sure that the First Minister did not mean to imply this, but she just stood up and basically said that transparency is important when she asks for it and we are not in a global pandemic, but the Government gets a mulligan when we are in a global pandemic.

Yesterday, we welcomed the announcement of a review of the entire debacle, but if trust and transparency are to be restored in the system, one key measure is the SQA showing its workings. In countries around the world, exam scripts are returned to schools so that teachers can see exactly how students were graded and how those grades were modified. That simple measure would end the secrecy that erodes confidence in the way that our exam system is managed, and it would be a valuable tool in helping teachers to close the attainment gap in future exams. Will the First Minister commit to that today?

The First Minister:

I know that Ruth Davidson is just back on the front bench, but the SQA published its methodology last week, and it is there for people to see, scrutinise and draw conclusions on. The chief executive of the SQA appeared before the Parliament’s Education and Skills Committee this morning. For reasons that I hope Ruth Davidson will understand, I have not had the opportunity to follow that evidence—I have been dealing with other things. However, the SQA’s chief executive has answered questions from members across the chamber. If there is other information that members want, the SQA and/or the Government will provide that.

Fundamentally, we have had to deal with an unprecedented situation. We have done that with the best of intentions, but we have recognised honestly that we made the wrong judgment and that perhaps we thought too much about standardisation in the system rather than individual experience in a unique year. Instead of doing what I suspect some others might do and simply dig our heels in, we have acknowledged that that was not the right thing to do, apologised to young people and put it right, and we are going to make more university places available.

I think that that should all be welcome. The Parliament is perfectly entitled to scrutinise all of that. I, for one, I am not scared of scrutiny, whether that be from the Parliament or the electorate. In fact, I relish and welcome it.

So the First Minister will not write to universities, she will not release correspondence today, and she will not commit to returning exam scripts to schools in future.

Next week marks five years since Nicola Sturgeon announced that education would be her number one priority. In those five years, she has pulled Scotland out of international tests, her flagship education bill has been scrapped, the named person scheme has been struck down by the courts, poor students have been punished by a persistent attainment gap, hundreds of teacher vacancies have been left unfilled, and we have just seen the biggest exam fiasco in the history of devolution. John Swinney has been the common denominator through all of that.

The First Minister’s loyalty to a colleague may be commendable, but her real loyalty should be to the parents and pupils of Scotland. They deserve new leadership in education, and John Swinney cannot deliver that. Why will the First Minister not see that?

The First Minister:

I am not sure that loyalty to colleagues is a strong suit for Ruth Davidson.

Ruth Davidson says that I will not write to universities. The reason for that is that John Swinney has already spoken to the universities. She says that we will not publish the SQA’s workings. The reason why I will not instruct it to do that today is that it did that last week. There are more teachers in our schools today than there were when I became First Minister, and we have just funded local authorities to employ more teachers in our schools.

Forgive me, but my mind is not particularly on political matters this morning. However, if Ruth Davidson wants to have that kind of exchange, she really should think about the position from which she seeks to do that. In just a few months, I will submit myself and my Government to the verdict of the Scottish people in an election. That is the ultimate accountability for our record and our leadership. As we do that, Ruth Davidson will be pulling on her ermine and going to the unelected House of Lords. I gently suggest to her that, when it comes to scrutinising and holding politicians to account, she really is not coming at that from a position of strength. It is not me who is running away from democratic accountability.

For four months, we have had the First Minister standing up and telling the people of Scotland that she does not do party politics. Nine minutes it took her to get there. The difference is this—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer:

Let us have some order, please.

The former leaders of the Labour Party, the Scottish Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Conservative Party might want to go and serve in another Parliament, yes. She thinks that that is a bad thing, but there is not a word of condemnation for the former leader of her party, who would rather shill for Putin’s

Pravda

.

The First Minister:

All it has taken nine minutes to do today is expose Ruth Davidson’s raw nerve. I do not criticise anybody for wanting to serve in any Parliament; I just have an old-fashioned preference—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer:

Can we have some order, please?

The First Minister:

I just have an old-fashioned preference that they get elected before they do so.

This Government has serious issues to deal with, and we deal with them each and every day. We are not infallible; we make mistakes and when we make them, we put them right. As First Minister, with my team of ministers, we are going to get on with the job of leading this country as best we can through the crisis that it faces. We welcome scrutiny of that, but we will not lose our focus on that central task, which is a more important one than any Government has faced in Scotland for quite some time. That is what I will be focusing on today, tomorrow and for the foreseeable future.