Chamber and committees

The measures that are set out in amendment 44 would cut across the statutory obligations of the Scottish Qualifications Authority. As I noted at stage 2, the SQA worked closely with partners during the pandemic to ensure that young people were able to achieve fair and credible grades in spite of the disruption caused by Covid. That included informing them of decisions on the timing of the return to an examination diet, with appropriate notice of such decisions taking into account public health advice at the time.

That is where Mr Marra and Mr Mundell are joined at the hip in making the same argument by, in essence, running down Scottish education. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but here we are—the joint runners-down of Scottish education are at it again, and I will not have that this afternoon. There is enormous strength in Scottish education, but the Labour Party and the Conservatives are totally belittling it on a constant basis, and they do no service to young people or educators.

Mr O’Kane is wagging his finger at me, so let me wag my finger back at him. He was involved in a local authority that presided over a good record on education, so why is he ashamed of East Renfrewshire Council’s record when he makes his contributions here, in Parliament?

The SNP policy is about closing the poverty-related attainment gap. I have just addressed that point in response to Mr Rowley. He made the point that inequalities existed pre-Covid, and the attainment challenge is all about addressing that inequality.

Obviously, if we had a greater range of powers to enable us to tackle poverty more effectively in Scotland—beyond the measures that we are already taking, such as the Scottish child payment, which of course the Conservatives, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats all voted against in the most recent budget—our task might be made slightly easier as a consequence.

Okay, if I must.

Amendment 3 proposes that a nominee should declare that

“they understand the role, duties, rights and responsibilities”

that are associated with becoming

“a named person”.

However, mental health legislation does not provide specific duties for named persons, as they vary in each case.

Current legislation already places duties on mental health officers that direct them to seek out, and talk to, a named person, so the potential for a person not to understand the role is minimal. In addition, the statutory code of practice is clear that it would be best practice for the mental health officer, or any other practitioner, to ensure that the nominee is provided with information about the role in a form that is helpful to them. That role will not change.

Legislation only places a statutory duty on a “prescribed person” to act as a witness to the nominee’s signature—nothing else. They are not required to explain the role to the nominee. The checking that a person understands that they have been nominated and that they wish to accept the role is a separate process, which a range of professionals can undertake. The change that amendment 3 proposes would extend the reach of that provision and would be difficult to verify, and it offers no new safeguard.

Amendment 4 would require the Scottish ministers to publish guidance on named persons. That guidance is already available and we are revising its content, in partnership with key stakeholders including the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland.

Given the position that I have just set out, the suggested stage 3 amendments are not required and could actually be unhelpful, as they would introduce more procedure before a role supporting a patient takes effect.

Our intent is to remove a requirement that is currently experienced as disproportionately bureaucratic and might even be a disincentive to taking up the role. I believe that amendments 3 and 4 would take us backwards and so, although I understand the motivations behind them, I ask Murdo Fraser to accept the assurances that I have placed on the record, and not to press the amendments in section 28.

For the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I advise Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, in so far as they are affected by the bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the bill.

I am not making the argument that the Government knows best. I am saying that, in the case of a pandemic that has national effect, the Government is required to put in place guidance that will have to be reflected and followed at local level. In those circumstances, we as a Government have a duty of care to the country, in general, to ensure that guidance is clear and accessible to professionals at local level, so that they can use their judgment in the context of the guidance. That is an important factor in establishing the framework that is envisaged in the bill provisions that are before the Parliament.

There is already scope for deviation from guidance or advice, where necessary, in line with the legal responsibilities that are exercised at the local level. Nothing in the bill is intended to undermine the professional judgment and knowledge of those in educational establishments. A provision such as the one contained in amendment 62 does not provide clarity on the action that providers need to take, and it would hinder swift and decisive national action.

Similarly, amendment 63 would place another unacceptable delay on ministers when they are, in effect, responding to a national emergency.

For the reasons that I have given, I invite Parliament not to vote in favour of any of the amendments in this group, with the exception of my amendments 9, 10 and 11.

Mr Rowley expresses the challenge in a fundamentally different way from how Mr Mundell and Mr Marra expressed it. Mr Rowley puts his finger on the point that is at the heart of the Government’s Covid recovery strategy, which is that inequality existed at the start of Covid and was exacerbated by Covid. The Government’s Covid recovery strategy, of which the educational strategy is an integral part, is all about addressing the challenges that existed for people as a consequence of Covid.

I ask Mr Kerr to forgive me; I have given way a number of times.

The measures that are set out in amendment 44 cut across the collaborative approach that was implicit in the work of the SQA and, at this stage, we do not want to pre-empt future legislation on the SQA’s successor or any outcomes from Professor Hayward’s review of the future qualifications system for Scotland.

Does the member want to make a point?