Chamber and committees

I think that Keith McDonald is looking to come in.

I do not disagree with you at all that the outcomes are what is important in this context and that that is primarily what the Government is held to account for. Nevertheless, do you recognise that there is also a leadership role for the Government here? The Government does not expect the NPF to be used only by the Government directly and public bodies more widely. The Government expects everybody—the whole of society and the whole economy, including business and so on—to embrace the national performance framework, so the Government itself should visibly embrace it. Otherwise, it is hard to see how the leadership role is being performed.

Thank you. That is all from me.

Thank you very much. Unless anybody has anything to add, that is all from me.

That is a useful point. Understandably, we are paying a lot of attention to who will be on the committee, but any representative structure such as that will have, at best, a handful of people from each group and probably just one young person or learner. That is a point about wider participation and engagement.

I am sorry to cut across you, but on the wider point about engagement with your members and, in particular, the team of 20 that you mentioned, there is a question of consultation on the bill and on the operating model that is being developed for the body. To what extent were your members engaged in relation to the drafting of the bill, and to what extent are they being engaged as we proceed with the development of the operating model? A lot of the organisational arrangements should not be in legislation, because that limits flexibility, but it is essential that your members are consulted on that as well. It does not sound as though that is happening, if I have picked you up correctly.

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?