Chamber and committees

I would be keen for the type of projects that Mr Kidd mentioned to be reflected in the whole family wellbeing fund. It provides us with an opportunity to recognise that some of the mental health challenges that individuals face are a consequence of a multiplicity of factors. It is by taking a holistic and, in some circumstances, a whole family approach, that we will address the issues.

During the pandemic, I had the pleasure of visiting an excellent project in Drumchapel in Mr Kidd’s constituency. That art-based project has been immensely successful in stimulating community engagement and helping to address the wellbeing of individuals. There is some very good learning from Mr Kidd’s constituency, which we can build upon.

We are in the hands of the JCVI on this question. Liz Smith will understand that we rely on the JCVI for its advice. All Governments have followed its advice and that has served us well. We expect the advice to be with us so that we are in a position to roll out the programme, probably around the end of September or early October. However, I stress that that is conditional on us receiving the advice from the joint committee, which we do not yet have.

We have strong facilities in place around the country to enable us to deliver the vaccination programme. It has been an extraordinary success and we are keen to make sure that the population’s protection is boosted as a consequence of the decisions that we take in consequence of the JCVI advice.

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?

Of course, I am all for a debate about Scottish education, but let us recognise the strength of Scottish education. A record number of young people are going into work, further education, higher education, training or voluntary placements as a consequence of the strength of our education system. Why cannot people such as Mr Kerr celebrate that achievement? Why cannot they come here and say something positive about Scottish education for one minute rather than—whether it is Mr Kerr, Mr Mundell or any of the others among them—belittling the achievements of Scottish education? That is an insult to the teaching staff of Scotland and to the fine young people in our schools.

In my view, amendment 46 would frustrate the effective implementation of regulations in a public health emergency. The implementation of any regulations cannot be contingent on the actions of relevant managers of student accommodation, who will be required to comply with such regulations. The regulations themselves can make provision to ensure that students are to be provided with necessary support.

Throughout the pandemic, we worked in partnership with stakeholders to produce guidance for the safe operation of student accommodation and the support of students staying in that accommodation. That would be our preferred approach in any future public health emergency.

Amendment 48 would require ministers to set out plans for providing additional financial support to students. During the Covid pandemic, we provided substantial support to students, including more than £96 million via hardship funding, digital access support and mental health support, and for student associations. We also worked with stakeholders, including student representatives, to ensure the continued welfare and safety of students. By taking that non-legislative and broader approach, we can ensure that any additional support for students is appropriate to the circumstances at the time and includes non-financial support where appropriate.

On amendment 53, there is already flexibility for individual applications to be made to the education authority for pupils to repeat a year, and those applications are assessed on their merits.

In a completely uncharitable comment, Mr Mundell said, in speaking to the previous group of amendments, that it had to be the Government’s way or no way at all. Amendment 12 proposes reporting on readiness for remote learning. I have further considered that proposal following stage 2. The amendment now places a more proportionate requirement on ministers to publish a report as soon as practicable after 31 July 2023 on the readiness for remote learning, and thereafter as ministers consider it appropriate. I agree with Oliver Mundell that that would give greater assurance across the education sector. On that basis, the Government is happy to support amendment 12. That demonstrates that we are prepared to listen to arguments from the Opposition when they are decent arguments.

Amendment 64 does not take into account the efforts that educators are making to aid pupils and students as we deal with the effects of the pandemic. It would not help to provide any further legal certainty, and it would place additional burdens on educators across all types of educational institution.

For the reasons that I have given, I invite members not to vote in favour of any of the amendments in the group, with the exception of amendment 12, in the name of Oliver Mundell, on remote learning.

I am pleased to open the final debate on this important bill. I would like to thank the conveners, members and clerks of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee, the Criminal Justice Committee, the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the other scrutiny committees, and all the individuals and organisations that have helped to shape and inform the bill that Parliament is considering today.

The Scottish Government’s priorities this session have been to continue to lead Scotland safely through and out of the Covid pandemic and to address inequalities that have been made worse by Covid, progressing towards a wellbeing economy and accelerating inclusive person-centred public services. Individually and collectively, the provisions of the bill support those ambitions as set out in the Covid recovery strategy and the updated Covid strategic framework.

The Government recognises that the powers contained in the bill to prepare for future public health threats are substantial. However, it is fair to say that we need those powers to address the gap that existed in the statute book at the start of the Covid pandemic. The powers have been demonstrated to be essential.

I have made it clear previously that the test of proportionality is central to all our judgments, and that is reflected in the bill. The bill as introduced contained significant safeguards around the exercise of those powers, but I recognised at stage 1 that the right balance had not been struck between the need for swift, effective action to deal with the implications of a pandemic and the need to do so with the maximum amount of robust parliamentary scrutiny available in such circumstances.

I want to touch on some of the improvements that have been made to the bill as a consequence of the hearing of evidence by the committees and the engagement that the Government has had with other members of Parliament and stakeholders.

It is an important part of the parliamentary process that, where the Government brings forward proposals and there is evidence marshalled to committees that indicates that we could move to a stronger and more appropriate position, we are prepared and willing to do exactly that.

I will address some of the changes that have been made to the bill to strengthen oversight and parliamentary scrutiny and the exercise of powers under the bill. Where the bill allows for regulations to come into force immediately under the made affirmative procedure, an explanation will be required as to why ministers consider that the regulations need to be made urgently. Such regulations must also contain an expiry, or sunset, provision where they are not already time limited in some way.

Any regulations engaging the so-called Henry VIII powers, which allow ministers to modify primary legislation by regulations in relation to public health protection, would require parliamentary approval before they could come into force. Moreover, key aspects of the public health protection and education continuity powers in the bill will also be subject to a gateway vote mechanism to ensure that they could be used only with parliamentary authorisation in the event of a future public health threat, with an appropriate alternative mechanism for situations such as dissolution when Parliament would be unable to consider a gateway vote mechanism.

In making all those changes, the Government has listened to the concerns expressed by external stakeholders and members of Parliament. We have done so in order to satisfy the objective of ensuring that our statute book is updated so that we have the necessary powers to deal with a pandemic—an important lesson that has been learned from the exercise of powers during the past two years or so—and that the exercise of those powers is undertaken in a fashion that is consistent with the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny in an emergency situation.

I turn to the public services reforms in the bill. Scrutiny committees rightly cautioned against possible risks of digital exclusion, and the Government shares the view that, while we must support online and telephone public services where they offer convenience to service users, we must recognise that such an approach will not suit all service users all of the time. It has always been Government policy that nothing in the bill should preclude the provision of traditional paper-based and in-person public services, and amendments were agreed at stage 2 to emphasise that point in the bill.

Although the bill is not, and cannot be, a complete solution to the cost of living crisis, I am pleased that amendments were agreed at stage 2 that amend bankruptcy and diligence law and provide important protection to people who are experiencing financial difficulties. Those measures increase the length of time that people with unsustainable debt have to seek advice without the threat of creditors taking action to pursue the debts, and they increase the sum of money that a person can keep in their bank account when they are subject to debt recovery procedures.

I recognise that some members would wish to go further on some of those measures, in particular in relation to support for tenants. The final version of the bill maintains provisions that have supported tenants and prevented evictions, despite some calls for those provisions to be removed or significantly limited. In the earlier debate on amendments, the Minister for Zero Carbon Buildings, Active Travel and Tenants’ Rights emphasised that we will continue our detailed work with stakeholders to further raise awareness of tenants’ rights, and to explore how we can make better use of existing powers and increase access to rent adjudication, which is key to challenging unfair rent increases.

Time does not allow me to speak to all the important reforms in the bill, from facilitating future vaccination and immunisation programmes to the modernisation of licensing practices, but there are measures in the bill that all members and all parties can support. In that spirit, and in the light of what I consider to be formidable movement by the Government at stage 2 to enhance parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of these emergency powers, I urge members and parties to support the provisions in the bill.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

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.