Chamber and committees

I have a final question on that topic, cabinet secretary. Under the bill, the chief inspector would also have to establish a strategic advisory council, which would consist of those who would be impacted by the chief inspector’s functions. What would that look like on a practical level? How would the advisory council support and, indeed, critique the chief inspector in practice?

The removal of the inspection function will leave a legacy body to support the curriculum. The committee has heard wide views on that remainder body, the possibility of overlapping roles and lack of clarity with other organisations. Is the bill sufficiently clear on that? What role will the stakeholders that Clare Hicks listed earlier have in developing the governance of the remainder organisation?

Yes.

I will throw that back to you slightly, because the committee has heard that meaningful change leads to more costs. Cabinet secretary, you talked about proper engagement, and you acknowledged in answer to Ross Greer’s question that there are a lot of stakeholders. Indeed, Clare Hicks listed a number of them in response to my earlier question. New development comes at a cost; there is, for example, a cost to councils in releasing teachers to engage in the process.

The committee has heard that more is needed. Does it concern you at all that recent financial memorandums, particularly in other portfolios, have been the subjects of successful challenge? Is there value in the Government actively looking again at the financial memorandum to ensure that all those issues have been accounted for?

Forgive me, Garvin Sealy; I will come to you with that question.

Gavin Yates, the bill does not specifically mention having parents on the learner committee. Can I presume that you would like that to be explicitly amended?

Megan Farr, do you want to come back in?

Good morning. I will stick with Ross Greer’s interesting line of questioning to Sharon McGuigan. Professor Muir recommended that the accreditation function be split from the awarding function. After initially agreeing with that, the Government reversed its position. As I understand it, the new bill will be very similar to the current regime, in that the accreditation function will be overseen by an accreditation committee, with minor changes being made to that accreditation committee’s membership. In your submission, you say that you are concerned about that. Why?

I have a brief question arising from one that Willie Rennie posed earlier. He made an interesting point about the number of people or groups that might end up on committees. That begs a question that I will throw first to Megan Farr and then move along. Is there a solution in which the bill could be amended to create a duty to set up processes so that particular groups will be heard, rather than incorporating those groups in various committees?

Let me challenge you on that, then—

Forgive me, Sharon, but are you saying that Unite the union would be the regulator?