Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

The conversation around data sharing is, of course, a complicated one; I think that we all understand that, including me. That is one of the reasons why the amendments seek to ask the qualifications body, or the inspectorate, to look at whether doing either of the things that the amendments propose would be useful for progressing education in Scotland.

I also think that the unique learner number has broader benefits than just the enabling of data sharing. However, it would be an important aspect of what we could do to bring coherence to the learner journey.

I take the cabinet secretary’s point about the candidate number. As she has identified, there are other ways in which we could track the pupil experience. However, there are too many different ways in which to do that, and my attempt is to bring one way into the system.

On the basis of the cabinet secretary’s tentative preparedness to discuss at least the learner number, if not the data sharing aspect, I will not press amendment 244, and I will not move amendment 328 at stage 2, but I would like to discuss the matter further ahead of stage 3.

Amendment 244, by agreement, withdrawn.

As the cabinet secretary just said, “However”, I wonder whether there was about to be a slight change in tack—I hope that I have not pre-empted that.

Would the Government support the principle of having the unique learner number, and of putting that in legislation, with the data-sharing aspect being seen as a benefit of that but not necessarily set out in legislation?

Will the minister take an intervention?

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

Forgive me.

I appreciate the points that the cabinet secretary has made, and I understand that the convener has amendments in that space in group 21. I am reasonable, so I am prepared to listen to that discussion and think about how we can take the issues forward.

However, I am quite clear that there needs to be a mechanism to enable concerns to be addressed. I acknowledge that the convener has put forward suggestions about that mechanism, as I have done in amendment 254, and I would like to hear at least an acceptance from the cabinet secretary that something needs to exist in order for the review to be looked at. Perhaps she can intervene in order to confirm that.

This is not only about higher history; there have, in recent history, been other problems with exams, not least, of course, what happened in 2020, and there should be the ability to review those qualifications and how the exams are carried out. I think that the Government has a role in that respect, but if it does not want that role, and if we do not want the qualifications body to be seen to be marking its own homework, I am interested to see the alternative that the Government puts forward.

On that basis—