Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thanks, convener. One of the proposals to resolve the situation is to move the accreditation option into HMIE, because one of the Government’s key objections to separating the functions has been the cost of creating a new public body. Ken McAra, would moving the accreditation function into HMIE be a solution, or would that cause other issues? Would we be resolving one arguable conflict of interests by creating another one?

There has already been quite a bit of discussion about the influence that young people can or cannot have on the structure, so I do not want to cover too much of that ground. I am interested in any suggestions that you might have for specific amendments that could be made to the bill.

Megan Farr, you have already mentioned the difference between someone representing the interests of learners or young people and actually having a requirement for there to be either a learner or, better yet, a young person rather than an adult, on the committee. Would you suggest any other specific amendments to the bill to strengthen the ability for young people in particular to participate and have an influence? I would also like to hear any thoughts that you have about adult learners and, in your case Gavin Yates, about parents and carers.

Thank you—that was useful.

That is really useful. It sounds as though Unite’s position is that there are weaknesses in having a voluntary rather than mandatory system. Can you say a little about what those weaknesses are? Is it your position that, in legislation, it should become a mandatory system?

Megan Farr made a point a moment ago—Gavin Yates or Garvin Sealy mentioned it, too, I think—about the fact that qualifications Scotland staff cannot make up a majority on a committee, although they could make up 49 per cent of it. Would you suggest amending the bill to have a lower cap on the proportion of the committee who can be staff of qualifications Scotland?

Good morning. There is an interesting section in the Unite response that I will pick up on a wee bit. I will quote it so that I am not getting it wrong. You said that the bill, as it currently stands,

“does not recognise the importance of Qualification Regulation in relation to the protection of the learner. There is nothing in the Bill that would strengthen regulation of qualifications in Scotland and this is a missed opportunity.”

In the first instance, can you expand on what you see as being weaknesses in the current regulation system? It sounds like you do not think that the system, as it currently stands, is strong enough, and that the bill has been a missed opportunity. Before we talk about how to strengthen it, it would be helpful for the committee if you could give us a bit of background on why you think that the current system is not delivering as much as it could.

Good morning. In the first instance, I want to check something with you, Councillor Hagmann, about the joint working group on sources of local government funding and council tax reform, which you mentioned. How many times has that met since the change in the Administration?

From all your written submissions and the evidence that we have heard, it feels as though there are not a lot of new ideas for fiscal empowerment for councils. The infrastructure levy was agreed to in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019; the cruise ship levy was announced last year; and the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 has been passed by the Parliament. What new proposals will local government put on the table to add to the agenda? What new powers do you want on which you will be seeking agreement from the Scottish Government?

I accept that that is not your remit in COSLA, councillor, but what are the witnesses’ views on what that power could look like? The idea of a power of general competence—certainly, as it was announced—found pretty broad consensus but, when you start discussing it, you find that everybody has a different idea of what it actually means. For example, local authorities in England have very limited power to create new revenue-raising levers, so they could not necessarily create their own visitor levy, but they have significant power when it comes to their ability to invest, which has resulted in a couple of local authorities in England making catastrophic investments and going essentially bankrupt—Thanet being the worst example.

What would an effective power of general competence look like? Is it about being able to create your own revenue-raising powers—you would not need to wait for Parliament to create a visitor levy, for example—or is it about having a greater ability to invest at some level, with safeguards?

Jamie, were you looking to come in on that point?