Chamber and committees

I am sorry to cut across you, but I want to clarify that. The infrastructure levy is a power in the 2019 act. We now need to pass the regulations to enable it to take effect before 2026, because the power has a sunset clause. My point is that Parliament agreed to the concept of an infrastructure levy when it put it in that act in 2019.

I am looking for proposals for new powers. Local government talks a lot about needing to be far more empowered to raise its own money—I agree with you absolutely—but I am interested in hearing what new proposals you are putting on the table. What new powers do you want local government to have?

Do other colleagues have any proposals, or has anything been discussed in your local authorities that could be introduced as brand-new powers?

I think that it was you, Malcolm—although it might have been David Robertson—who mentioned more flexibility on fees and charges. I cannot remember whose submission it was, but there was certainly something in COSLA’s submission on building warrant fees and planning fees, which have been discussed for some time.

Would it be beneficial for local authorities to have more flexibility around fees and charges in other areas? One example that has been brought up previously is parking fines, which are set nationally but around which some councillors have argued that they would rather set the rates themselves. Are there any examples of a nationally set fee, charge or fine that you must administer but around which you would rather have greater flexibility?

She would be very welcome.

You will have heard one of the questions that I posed to Professor Muir earlier. In my view, some of the criticism that has been made of the bill is more about the frustration of those who are looking for changes that really could not ever be legislated for around leadership at qualifications Scotland, cultural change and so on. There is a question for us in Parliament about what we can do with the bill—what amendments to it are necessary—versus the wider scrutiny role that we play in relation to the non-legislative parts of the reform agenda.

What are your views on that? Specifically, are there areas of reform that would require legislation that you are surprised are not in the bill? Vice versa, are there areas of the bill that are not required for legislative change or, on Professor Donaldson’s point, would provide too much restriction in the future and result in a lack of the flexibility that you are talking about?

I am particularly keen to hear more of Professor Donaldson’s thoughts on the inspectorate, but I realise that other colleagues will be going into that in more detail.

Barry or Mark, do you have any thoughts on that point?

Before I ask my question, I should put on the record that I have previously contracted Professor Priestley to do various pieces of work in education policy, mostly literature reviews and the like. That was not directly on the bill, but I wanted to put that on the record.

I will direct my first question to Professor Donaldson in the first instance, but others should feel free to come in. The question is about process—a really exciting place to start—and sequencing. A huge amount of reform work is going on, and the bill is only one part of it. Arguably, most of the reform work that the Government is committed to sits outside the legislative space. Do we have the right sequence of events? Should we start with the bill and then move on to the non-legislative reform work, or would you rather have seen a different sequence of events for the reform programme?

Good morning. You have said already that a lot of the changes that are required do not need legislation. The challenge for the committee is that although we have a role in scrutinising the whole reform process, the bill is the one bit that we have a vote on and that we can potentially amend if we think that it is necessary. A lot of the criticism that has been made of the bill so far comes from a place of frustration at not knowing what the wider reforms will look like and not knowing, for example, what the detailed organisational structure of the proposed new qualifications body will be. However, it is not possible to legislate to that level of detail without massively restricting the organisation’s ability to adapt in the future.

Do you have any thoughts beyond those that you have already articulated about the accreditation function? Is there anything that should be included in legislation that is not in the bill?

Thank you very much—that was useful.