Seòmar agus comataidhean

I agree with Mr Ewing on that point. As I said in my answers to previous questions, we take very seriously our obligations on human rights and on public health. As Mr Ewing rightly points out, we have obligations to take quick action, where necessary, if the public health advice suggests that that is an appropriate and proportionate thing to do.

It is also important to point to the responses to the public consultation. There was support for this move, for example, among local authorities and the public health sector. The idea that there is a consensus against this move is incorrect. Key organisations that supported the proposals to make the provisions permanent include COSLA, Public Health Scotland, the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland, and the Scottish Childminding Association.

I absolutely appreciate that there are strong views that the bill is not necessary at this point or that we should be doing things in a different way, but there are people who support the measures that we are taking and the way in which we are taking them.

Mr Ewing rightly points out that one of the absolute obligations of Government is to protect the lives of citizens, and that is exactly what we are doing with the bill as we try to take it through Parliament.

You have made a very important point about the right to life. We have had a number of discussions about that with the committee, and I am sure that wider discussions on the bill will cover human rights aspects, too. As Fergus Ewing also pointed out, the right to life was the obligation that sat extremely heavily—and rightly so—on Government at the start of the coronavirus pandemic. Indeed, that will be particularly the case at the start of any public health emergency.

As I said to Willie Rennie earlier, the Government does not want to push the bill through Parliament, because we want to seek consensus on the legislation and ensure that it is fit for purpose for whatever public health emergency arises in future. We appreciate that a very heavy responsibility to get this legislation right sits on Government and Parliament, so we are keen to work with others to see whether changes could be made to alleviate some concerns.

It is certainly important to recognise that there are those who might not like particular parts of the bill. I suppose that I would point to Universities Scotland, which has concerns around some of the granularity of certain aspects of higher education. In its written evidence, it recognises the case for having emergency powers in the event of another severe new public health crisis; there is a recognition that the Government of the day requires powers to deal with that. It is important that I continue to work with stakeholders, including Universities Scotland, to see what can be done to reassure it and others about the powers that we are taking on at this time.

That is why I am keen for the Government to listen to the concerns raised by the EIS and to the experiences that local authorities want to relate to us about that time before Christmas 2020, or any other time when they felt that their powers were lacking, because that would clearly be a concern. As I said, we want to get that right and make sure that there is no dubiety about where the powers lie for that. The important powers around education lie with local authorities. The bill will give the Government particular powers only in a public health emergency, and without those powers being in place and a public health emergency happening, the powers for education remain with local authorities.

Convener, you will probably be glad to hear that I do not feel the need to expand much on what Mr Ewing has said. He is quite right to point to those specific details. Proportionality is key to how the Government would and, indeed, could move forward with any regulation. It makes sense for that provision to be included, because one of the lessons that we have learned is about the importance of continuity in education and ensuring that, wherever possible, we keep our schools, universities and colleges open, with as close to normal environments as possible.

The checks and balances provided by proportionality are key to our moving forward successfully during a public health emergency. I refer to my earlier answers on the right to life and protecting people’s health, but we must also think about the other harms that can be done if a Government introduces measures that are disproportionate to the level of public health concerns. Mr Ewing is quite right to point out that that is a key aspect of the bill.

As has been demonstrated during the coronavirus pandemic, the different Parliaments have reacted in different ways. I know that the English and Welsh approaches are different from the direction that Scotland is taking. There is a difference of opinion, and that has happened at different stages of the pandemic. One of the lessons learned is that sometimes we will learn different lessons from the pandemic.

Clearly, we listen very carefully to the commissioner’s opinion on any issue. As I said to Mr Marra, the implications of aspects relating to children and young people in the justice system are clearly concerning. Although we pay attention to everything that the commissioner says, urgent discussion is required on how we deal with children and young people in the justice system.

Of course, we take very seriously the discussions with stakeholders, what was in the consultation and, importantly, what is said in evidence to the committee. I have listened carefully and paid close attention to what has been said, particularly on the issues that you raise.

I will make a couple of points on human rights, because it is an exceptionally important issue. It is integral that the Government fulfils its obligations on human rights. I believe that some of the arguments that have been made proceed on the premise that the United Kingdom has somehow suspended, or derogated from, some of its obligations under the ECHR. That premise is inaccurate. There has been no derogation from the ECHR in the context of the coronavirus. It is important that I make that clear.

We will ensure, as we always do with bills that go through Parliament, that we are content with the bill. The Presiding Officer has made a statement to say that, in her view, the bill’s provisions would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. That, of course, covers the requirements on human rights.

Any regulations that were made under the legislation, once enacted and its provisions commenced, would have to be compatible with the ECHR. The Scottish Government would have to consider the potential impact of any measures that were included in regulations on the range of convention rights. Any interference with a right under the ECHR would have to be justified in accordance with the Scottish ministers’ human rights obligations. We consider those obligations very carefully.

We will, of course, continue to listen to stakeholders that have concerns about such issues. However, from what I have seen at this time, I am not concerned that there is an issue with the bill and its ability to pass successfully through Parliament and become an act.

I think that a framework approach would lead to gaps in our ability to make decisions. With regard to getting into the granularity of some aspects, I am happy to carry on our conversations with Universities Scotland to see whether we can come to more agreement on the matter than we currently have, as we clearly do not have agreement right now. Nonetheless, it is very important that we have the ability to take quick decisions and to enforce them. As we do that, we would, of course, work with institutions to ensure that nothing inappropriate was being done. To give one example, animal welfare measures would have to be taken into account if we were to move forward with regulations.

However, it would be difficult if we were to get into a particular position. I will give the committee an example. If we, as a Government, received public health advice that suggested that a term or semester should start later, and an institution said, “No—we think everyone should come back now, and we should have in-person learning”, we would need the ability to say, “No, I am sorry—the public health advice is that that is inappropriate.”

A framework would not get us through that. We can have a framework to enable us to talk about the issues and to try to work in partnership. However, when push comes to shove, if an institution said, “No, we think in-person learning is the way forward” and tried to move forward with that at a far greater pace than Government would be at all comfortable with, given the public health advice, I do not think, with the greatest respect to Universities Scotland, that what it is proposing at this point would allow any Government to deal with that situation.

I have made it clear that I am more than happy to carry on discussions with Universities Scotland about the granular detail of some of the issues that it is concerned about, to see whether we can alleviate some of those concerns. However, it must also recognise where I am coming from. I do not think that we have had an answer from the university sector on what we would do if an institution just said no.

We do not believe that it will have any impact on that act.

We are cognisant of the evidence that has been given, and I will be more than happy to provide further details to the committee. Clearly, the situation will have to be looked at, given what the commissioner said and because of the concerns that have been raised. I am not at a point at which I can respond to that now but the Government will be keen to look into the concerns that have been raised.