Seòmar agus comataidhean

—because schedule 1 to the bill specifically says that the accreditation committee will be independent, and sections 19 and 20 say that the accreditation committee must produce its own corporate plan and independent report. Also, I think that schedule 1 goes on to say that the majority of the members on the accreditation committee must not be connected to—or staff of—the new qualifications Scotland. Yet you remain unconvinced. Why?

What would be Unite’s solution, then? Is it to amend the bill such that there is a complete split? Perhaps it is something else. Is it to bring in a regulator of the sort that I understand there is in England?

What do you think, if I may ask? This committee wants to know what it should do. I have put it to you that there are provisions in the bill that seek to preserve or promote independence, but you are uncomfortable with them and have said that the bill does not do that. So, what should we do?

I have a quick question on something that Pauline Rodger said to John Mason. The committee is considering the bill and trying to make sure that it does what the Government wishes it to do. In response to John Mason, you said that there is not enough finance. If you have quantified that there is not enough, logically you would have gone on to say what would be enough. Can Unite the union tell us how much extra is needed to make this work?

I want to ask you a direct question about that, if you do not mind. You say that you are supportive of the learner provisions, but does that suggest that there are provisions that you are not supportive of? In answering that, can you tell us whether you think that the bill addresses all the criticisms that were levelled at the SQA, or is there anything missing or requiring amendment?

Laurence Findlay, I note your remarks in your submission, which are challenging. Will the bill as drafted address the concerns that were raised by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and by Professor Muir and Professor Hayward and/or achieve what their reports intended?

Forgive me for cutting across you, but I am sure that those issues will come out during the evidence session. I asked whether the SQA specifically accepts in their entirety the criticisms that were levelled.

We all respect the views, but I put it to you that that suggests that you disagree with some of the criticisms.

I will be asking you a direct question about that in two seconds, so I will just hold things there, if you do not mind.

How much involvement did you and the SQA have in drafting the bill, such that it is actually something that the SQA has worked on, given the criticisms that were made? After all, you will have the knowledge. Have you had input into the bill, or is it being drafted and imposed by the Government?

My final question is for Stuart Hunter. You heard quite a lot there about cultural change and the restoration of trust. Do you in the SSTA think that the fix to that is legislative, or is it practical and on the ground? In any event, given what you have heard, what should we as a committee amend? What change to the bill would you like?