Chamber and committees

I want to press the amendment, but not move it, if that makes sense.

Like the amendments in the previous group, many of these amendments—in this case, all but one—were presented at stage 2. We then had a lengthy debate and discussion, and the Government went to great lengths to explain why we did not need a catch-up plan for young people, why it was not necessary to ensure that historical data would not be reused when determining future exam grades, and that we did not need to worry about the financial impact of some of the decision-making powers that were being used, because any future Government would, of course, go out of its way to ensure that students were well supported.

I do not believe that we can take anyone at their word on those things, partly because of the John Mason principle and partly because we have lived through a recent pandemic in which students and those who were sitting exams were treated exceptionally poorly. At times, the way that some of the decisions were handled bordered on heartlessness.

Without being unkind, I think that the Deputy First Minister’s biggest mistake during the pandemic was to allow the chaos around the first set of examinations. Young people have gone on, whether to further study or into the world of work, feeling scarred and let down by that process.

As one of the closing speakers in a long and wide-ranging debate—not just today but through the various stages of the bill—there is a huge amount that I could say, but, at this point, very little that would be new.

As colleagues have set out already, we fundamentally disagree with the Government’s approach to the bill. The final bill is an improvement, but it still falls far short of something that we could support in full. We have heard throughout the debate that there are many unresolved flashpoints across the Parliament.

The bill could have been split up. We could have opted for draft legislation that would have sat ready on the shelf. That would have allowed for amendments, tweaks and changes in thinking and approach; it would also have allowed for the learning from the Covid-19 inquiry to be taken into consideration. I cannot help but feel that we are making the very same mistake again. Just as we planned for a flu pandemic, we are now planning and putting powers into the statute book based on the Covid pandemic.

There is something in the Government’s approach that we have seen throughout the pandemic. At the start, it was keen to work consensually, and we were told that powers would be used only if they had to be and only for as long as was absolutely necessary. Slowly, over time, there has been a breakdown in that approach, and the appearance of exactly the type of centralising “Government knows best” approach that Jackie Baillie and Beatrice Wishart talked about, and that we see all the time in the Parliament.

On something so fundamental, however, through which not just the Parliament but the people of Scotland are being asked to hand a huge amount of power to the executive—to Government ministers—there is a duty to try to build consensus, take people along, and find as many areas of agreement as possible. The approach that has been taken by the Government has not allowed for that to happen.

I still think that such a collaborative approach is best. During the pandemic, the things that worked best were those in which we could find that agreement. I am concerned that, over time, as our collective memory of the pandemic fades—as I hope that it will—there will be a temptation to use some of those powers in an arbitrary way, because that is the easy thing for the Government to do. The hard work for Government is working with partners and building consensus.

Today, we have heard much about democratic consent. I do not want to get drawn into that different debate. However, it is important that the Government’s use of sweeping emergency powers must be on the basis of broad public support or extreme threat.

At decision time tonight, we will be in the position of handing a wide range of powers to the Government for an unlimited period. In no sense does that carry broad public support. We have heard from multiple speakers about the very stark feedback that the committee got during the consultation stage, and no evidence has been marshalled about the extremity of that threat. There are other worrying signs, and we have heard the Deputy First Minister talk to those at several points, but at no point have we heard an explanation of why it is possible for the Parliament to pass an enabling vote but not to pass legislation in draft form, or why we should be willing to lower the bar for allowing those powers to be used. A gateway vote is an improvement, but it is not the same thing as passing primary legislation. It is a different test.

My worry, particularly given the many things that we see happen and how this Government operates—and how all Governments operate, for that matter—is that a Government that has a majority in the Parliament might be willing to hand such a blank cheque to ministers and allow them to grab hold of powers that would be best exercised by the Parliament. I cannot vote for that in good faith.

Identification is important. Will the Scottish Government therefore reconsider the introduction of a more robust national neurodevelopmental screening programme in our primary schools?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I apologise to those in the public gallery for making them wait a little bit longer. Under rule 8.17.1 of standing orders, I seek clarification of whether a minister who is answering a question in the chamber is expected to give a full answer and to take the opportunity that is given to share with Parliament a significant change in Government policy that has already been communicated to stakeholders.

Today, during general question time, Lorna Slater stated that, during recent discussions, she had

“indicated that it is important for Government to work with stakeholders to explore options for more sustainable forms of bracken control in the future.”

However, I have been contacted by a number of individuals who suggest that the minister went considerably further and indicated a change in Government policy to stakeholders, telling them that she was

“not minded to support the continued use”

of Asulox in the future.

Bracken control may seem unimportant to some members of this Parliament—and, indeed, to some ministers—but it has far-reaching consequences for livestock, the environment and the rural economy. As a minimum, Parliament should be kept informed.

For that reason, Presiding Officer, in addition to my query about the properness of withholding key information in response to a comment or question, I seek your view on whether a minister, having come to such a view and having expressed it to stakeholders, should proactively share such a decision with Parliament in a timely manner via one of the many mechanisms that are available, thereby allowing the decision to be subjected to scrutiny.

Although it is perhaps not on the scale of other actions this week, this issue, in my view, speaks to the general culture of discourtesy to this Parliament and its members that exists within the current Scottish Government.

Yes, the app was not working.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes. I did not manage to cast a vote.

It will not come as a surprise to anyone on the committee to hear about the challenges that you have in communicating that to the SQA. I wonder whether the issue goes wider, to politicians, the Parliament and the Government, too. We all say that college education is important and that colleges have a key role, but is the political support there to make parity of esteem real? That might be a difficult question.

I want to go back to the point about parity of esteem. I am interested in your views on whether, in the policy that is coming from the Parliament and the Government, the message is strong enough in support of college education.

Have other people experienced that issue? I am particularly interested in whether teaching staff are present on smaller campuses or whether there is now a move to beam people in to teach.