Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes. The commissioner would have to consider that advice, consider what ministers were saying and balance that evidence with his expertise in children’s rights, welfare and wellbeing. He would have to balance up some of the difficult questions. I am not saying that the commissioner would have a veto; instead, I am saying that he would offer his views so that parliamentarians, the Government and the wider public would be more informed about where the balance lay.

During the pandemic, and particularly in the area of education, we have sometimes tipped towards a balance that considers public health narrowly without examining the wider health and wellbeing implications for young people. At several points during the pandemic, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner drew our attention to concerns. The commissioner’s involvement would be an additional safeguard that would help young people feel confident that the Government was taking their rights and interests into full consideration.

Amendment 120, which relates to local authority consent for closing schools, is a probing amendment. I am not saying that it is in its final form, but it raises a question for Parliament about the correct balance between ministerial powers and local authorities’ statutory duties to educate our young people. It would promote consensus. It is hard to envisage a situation in which local authorities would oppose public health measures, but it is important to have such a provision in the bill to ensure that the role of local authorities is properly respected.

That brings us back to the John Mason principle, which cuts both ways. There is a fear that the same people could make the same wrong decisions; equally, as hard as it is to imagine, something worse could arise in future. I would not want ministers to push ahead with school closures without being able to satisfy local authorities that it was the right decision.

The role of local authorities in the pandemic will certainly be considered, but Mr Fairlie’s argument is, in effect, that we should not legislate at this time, that we should wait for the public inquiry and that we should wait until we know the shape of any future threat before putting very definite things on the statute book.

The problem is that what we are considering is putting wide-ranging and very loose powers in the hands of the Government. These amendments—and amendment 120 in particular—set out balancing provisions. If you want wide-ranging non-specific powers for an unknown future pandemic, you will have to accept that there might be limitations in that respect. That is why the better approach would have been, as has been set out at length, to have draft legislation ready and agreed that could be continually reviewed and considered and then implemented quickly.

I do not have a great deal to add. This comes down to balance and who knows young people best. Even in a national response to a pandemic, there must be recognition that those on the ground who make the day-to-day decisions are often best placed to make those difficult balancing judgments. There is no one else to make them; there is no one else who can consider the individual circumstances of a young person to that level. The idea that the Government is best placed to take all those decisions on its own is one of the fundamental problems with the bill as drafted. In fact, that was not the experience during the pandemic. The provisions that I propose, or something similar, need to be in the bill.

I press amendment 113.

I say politely to the member that I think that the use of historical data at a school level in a way that impacts the grades of other young people is wrong. In addition, when grades were changed on the basis of an algorithm, and when ministers were aware of the information and chose not to act, those were mistakes—that is why changes were made later. Young people deserve a guarantee that such things will not happen again.

I go back to Mr Mason’s point in relation to some of the other amendments, which relate to areas such as the financial impact. Again, we hear that the Government would not, in a future pandemic, do this or that, but we do not know who the Government or the ministerial office holders are going to be at that point. Putting some of these things in the text of the bill, rather than relying on guidance or regulation, therefore offers much stronger protection to those who may be impacted.

I could go on for some time, but I know that members have travel plans.

I have to say that I am unsurprised that the Deputy First Minister is unable to support any of the amendments in the group, because they all speak to errors or a failure to provide support relating to his input to education during the pandemic. To be frank, with regard to the SQA, to hear that ministers were somehow not involved in some of those mistakes is a bit—

Amendment 112, with amendments 115, 117, 118, 134, 136, 140 and 145, seeks to remove what Graham Simpson’s amendments have left behind. That is my preference, as I think that those sections and provisions are not required at this time. In the interests of time, I will not rehearse the arguments that Murdo Fraser has made at stage 1 and again here today. More generally, the other amendments seek to raise the bar for using the provisions and introduce additional safeguards and reassurances.

We have already heard from the Deputy First Minister that we should be informed by the experience of the pandemic. A number of my amendments in this group speak to what went well during the pandemic in consultation with stakeholders. Consensus is one of the Deputy First Minister’s watchwords for how he likes to proceed, so I hope that those amendments will be taken in the spirit in which they are lodged and that, should there be drafting errors or things that are not quite to the Government’s taste, he will be willing to work with me to lodge at stage 3 revised amendments on which we can all agree.

There are other amendments in the group that speak to some of the Scottish Government’s mistakes. We must learn from some of the mistakes that were made in education, which was one of the most difficult of the areas caught up in the Covid-19 pandemic. Yesterday, I was back at my old school and speaking with young people. We continue to see the devastating impact that educational disruption has had on them, and as a parent, I continue to worry and wonder whether the Government and Parliament got everything right and found the right balance.

I do not doubt anyone’s sincerity in trying to find that balance, but there were certainly times when the Government overstepped the mark and continued to keep restrictions on young people in place far beyond the point at which they were necessary. We did not always get the right balance of the child’s best interests, the wider interests and the public health risk. With my amendments, which I will talk through briefly, I am keen to ensure that we do not make those mistakes again.

Amendments 118 and 130 seek to provide for a report from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland that addresses children’s rights. The report would consider whether the proposed use of powers was “proportionate and necessary”. Of course, under the bill, that decision would ultimately be for ministers but, when we have such a significant source of expertise at our disposal, it would be worth hearing from the commissioner’s office, which does an excellent job of speaking up for young people. That would provide some reassurance.

I guess that it comes down to who we believe is the right person to take the final decision. These are difficult questions of balance. At times during the pandemic, when it came to decisions about schools, we opted for a national approach, although there was significant local variation. At later points in the pandemic, such variations were taken into account in various regulations and measures.

I just think that when we are talking about something as significant as the closure of education establishments, there is a balance to be struck. The public health aspect is not the only consideration for decision makers, and it would not be the only consideration for the Scottish Government, which I know would want to strike a balance. I think that there is a role for the local authority in deciding when that point has been reached. Placing on the Scottish Government a duty to seek the agreement of authorities—or something similar—would promote partnership working and the type of culture that will help in the response to a future pandemic.

As I have said, I am willing to look at the wording of amendment 120 or consider another amendment that would put that principle into the bill. In a system in which local authorities are responsible for delivering education, I do not see how we can have Government ministers telling authorities—on narrow, public health grounds—that we have reached a point at which their establishments must close.

During the pandemic, we did not have a total closure of schools; we ended up with hubs and other things. We do not know what the exact circumstances would be in the future, but given that we have 32 local authorities with 32 different sets of circumstances, they would have a right to a significant say in any decision to close the educational establishments for which they are responsible.

In the interests of time, I will just say yes and move on to look at the educational advisory council that is covered in amendments 121 and 131.

Although that aspect of the pandemic response was, for me, not perfect, it worked relatively well, and I want to ensure that any future Government using those powers adopts a similar approach. Again, I am not tied to the wording in the amendments; they are my best attempt, alongside the legislation team, to come up with something workable. With the resources at the Government’s disposal, I would be happy to work with the Government if changes were needed.

Amendment 122 proposes to introduce a delay of 48 hours before school closures, and amendment 133 would introduce a grace period before the enforcement of any of the regulations in those sections of the bill. It is important to give people time to plan and to recognise that, although there is often a need to act very quickly, trying to move too quickly creates far greater problems for the system as a whole. Again, I am willing to consider whether those amendments strike the right balance.

On amendment 122, it is important to remember that there are other means of closing schools. I do not believe that we have any local authorities or individual schools in which the relevant individuals or authorities would seek to keep a school open where they believed that there was a significant and serious threat to their young people.

Amendment 123 promotes educational continuity and seeks assurances from the Government that appropriate alternative provision would be put in place before schools were closed.

Amendment 124 seeks to promote best practice on communication between pupils, parents and carers and schools. Amendment 132 places on the Government what it calls a “Duty to seek agreement”, which might fit in with amendment 120. There might be room for reasonableness there.

Amendment 137 seeks the early removal of regulations made under the provisions; in a sense, it is designed to promote reconsideration. I think that amendments 138 and 139, which provide a review mechanism in the event of a change in the minister who is responsible for making the regulations, bring us back to the delicate question of balance. Given the difficult judgment calls that are involved in these matters for those who have to implement any regulations, it is important that they know that the Government minister who is responsible continues to believe that the regulations are absolutely necessary.

Amendment 141, which provides for the exercise of professional judgment, is again designed to make the provisions in the bill more workable. It addresses one of the concerns that has arisen throughout the pandemic, which brings us back to Mr Rowley’s point about who is best placed to make decisions and where responsibility sits. Sometimes those who are responsible for implementing decisions can see that, in individual circumstances and in relation to individual young people, implementing the provisions as intended by ministers might actually create a greater risk or cause greater disadvantage. There has to be some reassurance for those whom we would be asking to do something very difficult that they would be able to exercise their professional judgment and that, where they were acting in good faith and doing what they believed to be right, they would not face severe consequences.

On amendment 142, which is on readiness for remote learning, that was, again, one of the areas in which the SNP Government response was lacking during the pandemic. We were very slow to move on remote learning; we were underprepared; and our schools, which were already struggling and had been pushed to breaking point by reductions in teacher numbers, were not in a place where they felt confident, going into the pandemic, that they were well resourced to move learning online.

In a sense, amendment 142 complements Stephen Kerr’s amendment 119, which I will leave him to speak to. The idea that, in future, we could close schools without having learned the lessons of this pandemic is, in my view, unthinkable. It is important that that is recognised in the bill, because if we are to hand the Government powers to close schools and deny young people their right to in-person education, that will necessitate a balancing provision requiring that we have done everything that we can and have pulled out all the stops to ensure that their needs are met.

Amendment 143 seeks to place on ministers a

“Duty to explore alternatives and mitigations”

and to report back on what was considered and why certain options were not pursued. Again, having that information is important in order to build confidence in any measures that are taken and to provide people with the reassurance that they need, because some of those decisions are decisions of last resort rather than things that are taken forward because they are the easiest solution for Government.

I move amendment 112.

It is almost impossible to talk about the college sector without talking about funding. It is hard to believe that, off the back of the pandemic and from a Government that talks up opportunities for young people and learners in Scotland, we have seen the college sector so badly funded. I would be interested to hear your views on the impact that that has had across the country.

No. I am happy with that.