Seòmar agus comataidhean

But one faces a lower parliamentary hurdle than the other in terms of the scrutiny and the kind of process it has to go through.

In your view, the case for using that procedure would diminish over time and it would be less proportionate if you were planning in advance for an emergency. Is that a fair comment?

Do you think that there is a difference or a sort of sliding scale? Passing new emergency legislation requires the full parliamentary process. Does having a provision just to bring the legislation into force not lower the bar? Should we question whether that is proportionate for the scale of measures that the legislation enables. We are talking about pretty fundamental rights to education being removed. Is scrutinising the ability to bring it into force enough?

I would be interested, because there is obviously a different type of consultation. In effect, a member of the Parliament is relying on a different type of consent to bring something into force than they would need if they were putting the legislation on to the statute book and having it sit there. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that and anything more you could provide, but I do not want to push you if you do not feel comfortable. Anything from a colleague would be helpful.

At the start of the pandemic, we were all willing to tolerate things in legislation that we might not normally have been comfortable with. Have things moved on? Obviously, partnership is important, but so, too, is proportionality. I have been listening carefully and, from what you are saying, it seems that you do not feel that the bill is proportionate to the scale of the task or the degree of emergency that we face. I am happy for anyone to comment.

Has something gone wrong in that communication when senior people in a wide range of organisations are, in effect, saying that the Government’s proposed legislation is an overreach? Does that not break down some of the trust, partnership and confidence that has been built up in the past two years? Does that not put public health at risk?

One has a lower hurdle to get over. That is my point. One has a lower—

Would a bring-it-into-force provision meet that test?

Before we begin taking evidence, I wish to raise a point and seek your clarification, convener.

I suspect that I am not the only member of the committee who has been concerned by reports that, after more than a year, the Scottish Government is still withholding from publication the draft version of the report that it received from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development last January and its response to that report.

Furthermore, I have heard that a parliamentary statement on the report by Professor Ken Muir is now planned, and it has been reported that senior leadership at the Scottish Qualifications Authority and other education bodies have already seen an advance draft of the report. I am not aware of that courtesy having been extended to this committee. This looks like a repeat of the situation with the OECD report, in which unaccountable organisations that are currently failing our young people are extended an opportunity to review and perhaps influence the findings of those reports without any checks and balances.

Having been a member of the committee for a number of years, I believe that it is insulting that such documents have not been made available to the committee and that the practice of excluding Parliament and denying us the fullest opportunity to exercise our scrutiny function diminishes the work that we do. I find that unacceptable. I believe that we should urgently request those documents.

I know that we will discuss our work programme in private today, but I am increasingly concerned that too much of our education policy is decided behind closed doors, not least because of the culture of secrecy and lack of transparency at the heart of the Scottish National Party’s approach. It is important that the public knows that the committee is alive to those issues and that we are taking our job of scrutiny seriously. Ideally, I would like to see a decision taken to move today’s discussion of our work programme into public to allow this urgent matter to be addressed. If that is not possible, convener, I would like your assurance that the matter will be put on the public agenda for next week’s meeting.