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.

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.

I guess that the beauty of the process that we have in this place is that, at stage 2, we can propose amendments and we can have further amendments at stage 3. If the committee were minded at stage 2 to accept that the proposals are sensible, we could look to give more clarity on the status of the framework at stage 3. If we are relying on a framework that really is of value—we all agree that it is—but that does not have statutory provision, and if the committee and Government agree that there should be a statutory arrangement, this is the very bill to provide that in.

I am still not convinced that it would not be a good opportunity to support the amendment now and perhaps enhance it at stage 3. I encourage Ross Greer to use his vote for that.

I welcome that intervention. Professor Muir is not here to answer that specific question but, what his report and all the other reviews—including the Hayward review, which the cabinet secretary referred to—seek to do is to provide parity of esteem. I do not see how that would confuse things; actually, I think that it would clarify the picture for learners and for employers, which is really important.

I am looking at my notes on the review of the post-school learning system, which said that foundation apprenticeships

“are often not viewed as comparable and that there is little consistency in the way that educational institutions will treat them when assessing entry requirements for further and higher education.”

That is just one example of how the current way in which we name and understand qualifications has confused the landscape and has a real impact on young people’s progression, whether to further or higher education or into employment. It is important that we take that on board.

On the basis of the discussion that we have had today, I am content not to move amendment 231 but to further discuss with the Government how we may consider the arrangement between the qualifications body and the SCQF Partnership and can further embed that in legislation. I take the cabinet secretary’s points about language and the implications for quality assurance and I would be prepared to discuss that at stage 3. I am also prepared not to move amendment 238, on the basis that the cabinet secretary is prepared to work with us to look at how we can ensure that regard is given to the SCQF in future.

I am not yet convinced of any reason not to press amendment 229, which looks to make SCQF levels clearer in the naming of qualifications. We have had some interaction on that issue today. Willie Rennie asked the cabinet secretary about support for that and I got the impression that the cabinet secretary was supportive and will look at that. I see no reason not to take this bill as the opportunity to do that so, on that basis, I will press amendment 229.

Regarding amendment 354, and because we are mentioning the point about SCQF levels that is dealt with by amendment 229, it seems remiss not to set out in legislation what the SCQF Partnership is, so I still feel the need to move amendment 354.

I am supportive of the inclusion of British Sign Language users, which is why I included them in my amendment. However, the same argument could be made for the inclusion of “persons with protected characteristics”; after all, many BSL users will be covered by the 2010 act, too. It is still important to specifically highlight that particular definition in the bill.

The second part of my amendment relates to specific groups that are not identified in the bill. It is about inclusive communication for disabled people, in particular, but it could also be about communication in other languages. I ask the cabinet secretary to reflect on that point.

As George Adam knows, one of the key recommendations from the Muir report was to create a new national body that would have the curriculum function and that could also serve as the space—which my amendments would provide for—to host the accreditation function that we have discussed so much during the committee’s stage 2 sessions so far.

On the basis of the discussion that we had last week about what would happen to accreditation, I am content not to move my amendments at this stage if, across the parties, we are still open to discussing what the best option would be at stage 3.

My amendment 286 would ensure that accessibility is built into the foundation of qualifications Scotland’s work and is not added as an afterthought. By requiring qualifications Scotland to have regard to the needs of BSL users and people with protected characteristics, we would strengthen inclusion and ensure that every learner can access vital information in a way that works for them.

As for the rationale that the cabinet secretary has just set out with regard to picking out particular groups from the protected characteristics groups, I find it difficult to see that as much more than a red herring. If the cabinet secretary would like to make an intervention, I would be happy to hear it.

I take the cabinet secretary’s point, but if we do not do it here, how else can we ensure that people who are not covered by the UNCRC get the same experience from the educational institutions that are delivering to people who are covered by the UNCRC? How can we ensure parity of experience if we do not do something in the bill?

On the basis that the cabinet secretary has suggested that we work together at stage 3, I will not move the amendment.

Amendments 282 and 132 not moved.

Amendments 35 and 71 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

Section 15—Annual report of Qualifications Scotland