Seòmar agus comataidhean

I support the intention behind amendment 302, but can Miles Briggs clarify what definition of the term “registered teacher” Stephen Kerr is using?

Will the cabinet secretary clarify what particular concerns she has with the drafting of that amendment?

If it is not a function of the inspectorate or qualifications Scotland to look at how we can create a smooth learner journey and ensure that we follow the experience of our young learners and other learners throughout the education system, I do not know whose function it would be. I understand that it could be quite a process and I do not underestimate the work that might be involved, but it is an important aspect of creating a coherent and supportive education environment for children and young people, particularly in qualifications.

Can you say whether those regulations would be made under the negative or affirmative procedure?

I support the amendment in principle. However, there are a couple of potential changes that could be made to the wording that might address Ross Greer’s point. Subsection 2(a) states:

“the circumstances where the person undertaking an examination may receive additional time”.

Is that something that would be set out by qualifications Scotland or is it something that would be bespoke and specific to the individual? It is important that such things are recognised, but would the member consider working with me and others to bring the amendment back at stage 3?

I will press amendment 245.

The member is aware of the powers that committees have to invite witnesses and the extent of, and restrictions on, the circumstances in which witnesses can be compelled to come. She will also know the circumstances in which people can be compelled to act on committee recommendations. In fact, there have been amendments to this legislation on that very point.

We need to do everything that we can, across the bill, including in the amendments on the chief inspector’s role, to create that independence. The amendments in Sue Webber’s name, to which I have added my name, do that.

The amendments in my name in this group are an attempt to provide clarity, consistency and confidence, ensuring that learners and employers can understand what qualifications mean, how they compare and where they lead. The Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework Partnership is one of Scotland’s most important educational assets—I think that most of the committee’s members will share that view—and the bill should do more to embed its role in the new system.

The amendments that I have lodged in this particular group ensure that the qualifications would be named clearly, mapped transparently and developed in active partnership with the SCQF Partnership, which would remove confusion and strengthen trust in the system. Without the national framework, we could risk reintroducing the same opacity and duplication that has failed learners in the past, and these amendments seek to fix that.

We know that people can sit exams and take qualifications at the same level in the Scottish credit and qualifications framework, but the words that are associated with them—highers, modern apprenticeships or foundation apprenticeships—are not always fully understood with regard to the amount of work and effort that has gone in. Parity of esteem across the education system in that regard is fundamental to ensuring that we serve the learners of the future.

Amendment 229, in my name, would require qualifications Scotland to name qualifications in a way that aligns with the relevant SCQF level. The aim is to create an easy-to-navigate system that ensures ease of access for learners and reflects best practice, but which also embeds the parity that the committee and others have talked about hoping to achieve in the system. It would put into practice the principle of simplicity; it would ensure that learners, parents and employers can immediately see and understand what level of qualification someone has; and it would remove any lack of clarity in the system that could be a barrier to progression.

Amendment 231 would build on the quality assurance established by amendment 230 in the previous group by requiring qualifications Scotland to enter into a shared confidence agreement with the SCQF Partnership to formalise that collaborative relationship and to guarantee that SCQF standards were embedded in the development of qualifications. That is needed, because without that clear framework, learners, teaching staff and, as I have said, employers might find it slightly difficult to understand exactly what a learner has achieved. It is incredibly important that we equip young people with the types of skills, and the passport for such skills, to enable them to demonstrate to employers in the future what they have been able to achieve.

Amendment 238 would require qualifications Scotland, in the exercise of its functions, to “have regard to” the SCQF.

I hope that the cabinet secretary and committee members can support the amendments in this group. As members will see, amendments 238 and 229 could each offer supportive functions, but there are options if members feel that they want to support a slightly different approach. I hope, therefore, that members across the committee, supported by the Government, will be able to find something in this group of amendments that they can support and progress.

I move amendment 229.

If, as the cabinet secretary says, there is nothing to hang that statutory responsibility on, is the bill not an opportunity to create that?

The point is well made. I note that I saw agreement from the cabinet secretary that stage 3 discussions are still on the table. That is really important. What I have tried to do with my amendments is recognise that we cannot reform the education system by continuing to do reform after reform and have a perpetual cycle of reforms. We have to get it right this time. I tried to create the space in the legislation for a body that could do what all the reports recommended, which is to reform the curriculum function and to separate the accreditation function. I have tried to do that by proposing a new body as a mechanism through which we could do it.

I still think that the bill was completely silent on some of the curriculum functions and that it could have done more regarding Education Scotland. There are amendments on that in my name and in other members’ names, as well. I did not want to miss the opportunity in the bill for us to put the curriculum at the heart of what we are doing for education in Scotland—driven by learners and by what is happening on the front line and in schools, rather than driven by assessment. The amendments that I have lodged—I am, of course, still speaking to them—could do that. However, as I agreed last week, I will not move the amendments on the basis that we will continue to have this discussion at stage 3.