She wasn't. Angharad wasn't there.
She wasn't the one who said that. Certainly, I'd have to reflect. My gut instinct tells me that one of the issues that we have is developing an understanding of the brand and what that qualification is, and if we move away from 'Welsh bac' and suddenly start to call it something else, I think that could be even harder and set us back from where we are. So, that's not to dismiss it, and I would want to reflect on those views, but I think if one of the issues that we've got is developing a better understanding of the qualification; if we were to suddenly change the name of it, that might have the unintended consequence of making that job even harder. But, obviously, if the committee was to make a recommendation, we would—I'm happy to reflect on that evidence, but, as I said, my gut instinct would tell me that there could be an unintended consequence of moving away from that brand.
Okay. Thank you. The next questions are from Dawn Bowden.
Thank you, Chair. You touched on this once or twice in answers to questions about how rigorous the qualification is. We've had mixed evidence, I would suggest, from groups of stakeholders. We've heard people say that the Welsh bac has no rigour, that pupils are spoon-fed. We've heard that the Welsh bac is passively marked, the grades are inflated, that there's little rigour in the sampling and moderation, there's a confusion about how the SCC is graded, and I know that's something you talked about, actually, that introducing the grading system is improving the rigour. I suppose my question to you is: if the Welsh bac is being seen in this way by stakeholders, how are going to address that? To what extent is that a real problem?