Seòmar agus comataidhean

That was very helpful. Beth Black said that she was unsure what I meant when I asked what the actual difference was—that is what I was trying to tease out. I think that the SQA is talking about embedding the normal, day-to-day practice of teaching professionals into any alternative certification model if that is what we have to end up with. That is very helpful.

I am wondering what role moderation would play within that process and in quality assurance. We still have the same situation with one-person departments and different approaches within local authorities or among different local authorities. It would be helpful to know about that as well.

I am not sure whether I will get back in a second time, so I will ask a second question—I would like to explore some of these matters further. Teachers will feel very empowered now, as they should do, such that, when they put in an estimate for a young person, that will be a true reflection of the competencies at which that young person will be operating. After all, that is what teachers have been asked to do with moderation and quality assurance.

We then go to the exams. As we know is the case with any exam, not every young person will perform as well as anticipated in those exams, and that is where the appeals process comes in. Has the SQA considered that, should the exams go ahead next year, as I hope they do, we can anticipate many times more appeals than before, given how teachers and young people feel empowered with high-quality estimates showing those young people operating at a very high level? If young people do not perform in that way in exams, a significant amount of appeals are likely to come forward. Has the SQA given consideration to that?

Does the SQA anticipate a successful appeals process in the coming year? Teaching professionals always do a good job at estimating grades, but, over the past couple of years, they have had to follow a very detailed and specific approach to evidence gathering and submission under the alternative certification model. Can we anticipate a robust system of estimates, and, if those estimates are of high quality, should we expect more successful appeals in the year ahead? Should young people know the estimates before they walk into their exams?

Thank you, convener, and I welcome what you have said.

My colleague Michael Marra’s line of questioning has been really helpful. I know that initial guidance has been issued, and we are all holding our breath for the more detailed guidance—perhaps that is what we are going to hear about from Beth Black. Looking at the guidance that is out there, though, I see that there are three scenarios at present: first, we run the exams as planned, with the modifications to assessment that Fiona Robertson has highlighted; secondly, we have an additional modified process with exams; and thirdly, we have some form of alternative certification model. It is that third scenario that I want to ask about.

The guidance refers to

“the type, quality and volume of evidence that would be needed to support quality assured estimates in a ‘normal’ year”,

which would be used to

“support ... provisional results”.

It goes on to say:

“Provisional results would be based on in-year assessments that normally take place during the school year such as prelims, practical activities, performances and class tests.”

There are, in theory, three different models. In two of them, exams take place, although modified, and in the third, exams do not take place but there is an alternative form of certification. However, according to the guidance, those are the types of assessments, observations and evidence gathering that teachers would be doing anyway. My question for Fiona Robertson—or, indeed, Beth Black—is, what is the actual difference here?

Mr Burr, I will drop you an email after the meeting to clarify the point that I made so that it is not misinterpreted or in case I have not articulated it properly.

It would be quite helpful for the committee to get that information. There was increased provision for proxy voting in Scotland, particularly if people had Covid symptoms or the coronavirus. It was good that that was not used to a great extent, although that could have been because people were not aware of that option or because it was not required. Perhaps you could comment on the suggestion that I heard on the doorstep, which was that carers should be able to apply for emergency proxy votes? For example, I had constituents who did not want to say that they had coronavirus symptoms to get an emergency proxy vote because that was not true, but they had caring responsibilities that prevented them from voting. It would be helpful to hear a little bit more about that.

I do not know whether Phil Thompson wants to come in, but I want to roll in a final question—if there are time constraints, convener, I am happy to be written to in relation to it. Any further comments on emergency proxies would be helpful, but I had also been talking about postal vote applications. Is data held on those who applied for postal votes? I know that data is held on first-time applicants, but were our black and minority ethnic communities proportionally more likely or less likely to apply for a postal vote? What about those in low-income areas and areas of multiple deprivation? I am conscious that there will not have been a uniform uptake in the application for and casting of postal votes across Scotland; there might have been variations. I am quite keen to better understand that. I do not want to open that up to wider conversation this morning, but, if there is data on that, I think that the committee would find it helpful.

Elections are now almost everyday business for local authorities—they are more likely to be having an election than not—and chief executives become returning officers almost by default. I looked at the role of chief executives as returning officers in another committee. I am not going down that road, but something that came out of that other committee’s inquiry was that some local authorities have standing election offices that do the work day by day, irrespective of whether an election is scheduled, whereas other local authorities do not have the capacity or resources to do that. I do not know whether they cluster together to run election offices across local authority boundaries.

I am putting that on the record because resourcing is an issue. Capacity, time and forward planning are vital. What is the picture across Scotland’s local authorities regarding having standing election offices that look ahead not just one year but two, three or five years? Those would be offices that do not only think about writing out in the February before a May poll to gauge the uptake of postal voting applications, but that think more generally about their longer-term strategies. That would help in the organisation and smooth running of elections.

The Glasgow experience—with which I have no issue, I should point out—was that candidates and agents did not get to see doubtful or spoiled ballot papers; they got to see only a sample of ballot papers to show the type of decisions that staff were making. That was fine, but was it standard throughout the country or does each returning officer take a different view? Is there a standardised way of reviewing such papers?

That is very helpful. I gave the caveat that there was a significant increase in reality, irrespective of what the Electoral Commission’s snapshot survey showed.

Does anyone believe that bringing forward the deadline for applying for a postal vote might have slightly reduced the number of people who eventually applied for a postal vote? I am reminded that 4,000 postal vote applications were received after the new, earlier deadline. What work was done with individual voters who applied for a postal vote after the deadline to remind them that they could have a proxy vote and that there were other ways to ensure that their democratic mandate was exercised?

I echo the convener’s comments about the excellent work that went into planning the election and making it safe, secure and credible. Those who worked on the day—certainly those at the count in my constituency—did exceptional work. I sure that that was the case in all members’ experience. It seems a little churlish to scrutinise some of the aspects to see how we can improve things, but I just wanted to give the context that I firmly believe that the elections went incredibly well in hugely challenging circumstances.

It seems churlish to ask about why we did not do better in relation to postal votes. Twenty-four per cent of voters applied for a postal vote, whereas the previous figure was 18 per cent. However, 38 per cent of voters said that they wished to apply for a postal vote, although that did not happen. Why was there that difference between the numbers of those who indicated that they wished a postal vote and those who actually took the steps to apply for it?