Seòmar agus comataidhean

That would be my point. It would be better if we were looking at the bill in a broader sense, when we can understand the impact of the pandemic, and that we do it properly. We must not legislate in haste and repent at leisure.

I have a slight reflection to make on that issue. I do not believe that that is tangential at all; it is absolutely critical to our understanding of some of the unintended consequences of legislation, whether that be emergency legislation or properly scrutinised legislation. It would be remiss of the committee not to make urgent representations to the justice minister, given the evidence that we have heard today about the increase from, roughly, 40 per cent to 80 per cent in the number of young people sitting in prison without trial or recourse to justice. That is totally unacceptable, and something must be done about it immediately.

I welcome the focus on rights, including the right to education. You may have heard in the previous panel discussion about the risks in the short term of further mutations in and strains of the virus, which might result in further school closures. I want to get your reflections about what some of the consequences of that might be. There was discussion about digital access. We know that such access is far from widespread at the moment and that there are still challenges in that regard. Will Liam Fowley reflect on that?

I have a brief supplementary question for Paul Little and Alastair Sim. I was quite intrigued by what Paul Little said. What did not happen in the past two years that the Government wanted to happen? If it is asking for more power to direct, what were the things that did not happen? What is the problem that the Government is trying to solve with the bill?

Did you not feel at any point that the Government or ministers were asking you and your colleagues in universities to do something, and the universities were just saying, “No, we cannot do it”—perhaps the bill seeks to take more power to the centre to compel you? Do you not recall conversations along those lines?

I will move on to section 2 of part 2, which is regarding consultations on proposed changes to school estate and provision. I will hopefully keep it reasonably brief. When the proposals first emerged, concern was voiced to me regarding a power shift to central Government. The issue is about the consultation process and taking people’s views on board. The EIS written submission comments on any moves to remove public meetings from the process of consultations on whether a school should close permanently or be merged with another one. I ask our colleague from the EIS to set out why it is particularly important for those physical meetings to continue.

I am sorry, but we did not catch the start of your answer, David. Could you start again?

Would it be useful to signal in the bill that we should have the maximum possible participation? Should there be a duty on local authorities to maximise participation in such consultations? Would that be reasonable?

I have a brief final word, convener. Should the bill include a guarantee about educational access for young people, should there be school closures?

There are too many of those.

Alastair Sim, do you understand my characterisation of the situation?