Chamber and committees

We have heard the Government’s approach: it is its way or no way at all. That is sad, because there was an opportunity to work together and make sure that the principle of professional judgment was built into the legislation. That is the least that our hard-working educational professionals deserve. Yes, it is right that we have national measures, but there has to be a recognition that, if broad and blunt approaches are to be taken quickly in an emergency in an effort to get things right across the country, there needs to be room, at a local level, for people to take pragmatic and sensible decisions that are in the best interests of our young people.

To say that Government ministers can make rules nationally that fit all scenarios is wrong, and it does not speak to many of the challenges that we saw during the pandemic, when things that were announced here or on television did not work out so well when it came to their implementation. There needs to be more discretion and flexibility.

On amendments 57 and 58, I reassure members who are worried about the provisions that those amendments seek to take out that I intend to press them only if we manage to get the rest of the education sections removed. That is my preference. The legislation is not fit for purpose, and it is not right for such issues to be grouped in a catch-all bill. As we will argue in the closing debate, and as we have said throughout, the preparation work should have been done and the legislation should have been on the shelf, ready to go. We should not be putting some of the proposed sections on to the statute book and handing broad powers to ministers.

Yes.

Amendment 44, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 9—Regulations on school boarding accommodation

Amendment 9 moved—[John Swinney].

I will not move amendment 12.

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.

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.

Heather Innes touched on the consistency of investment across smaller campuses. I am interested in whether there is a uniform position or whether smaller campuses tend to miss out.

A second issue is whether staff are always there on smaller campuses. It is not just about students being on campus. With the move towards more digital delivery, I have had feedback that teaching staff are often not present on smaller campuses, or they are beamed in from other sites. Have you experienced that?

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.