Chamber and committees

I have no relevant interests to declare.

Section 1—Public health protection measures

In the system that we have in Scotland, local authorities are the providers of education in their areas. Of course, the Government has a role in working with them and directing national policy, but I do not want to have a situation in which we deny children their education and close education establishments without first getting agreement on that. Placing a duty on ministers to seek consent is the right approach.

Perhaps amendment 120, as currently worded, is too strong. I am willing to listen to what the Government says and to try to strike a better balance that secures consensus. As the bill stands, the balance is wrong. The bill puts too much power in ministers’ hands and does not recognise the role that our local authorities play in the delivery of education.

I am interested to learn how the wording of the amendment would prevent ministers from taking action. The only duty that it places on them is to seek a report.

Yes, but if there is no report to have regard to, then you would have to have regard to it after the time.

I will speak briefly because this comes back to the point about balance, which we have already covered at length. I am interested to hear the Government’s response to my amendment. I do not think that there is a great deal more for me to say.

I move amendment 113.

These are further amendments that seek to put in place additional protections and address some of the shortcomings that we saw in the Government response during the pandemic. The principles behind them are fairly straightforward, but I accept that there may be questions relating to the way in which they are drafted or worded. Again, I am happy to work with the Government and/or anyone else to find a form of words that takes the principles forward, particularly around educational assessment and examinations, because I think that our young people want to see that lessons have been learned. There is a great deal of anger and concern in that regard, and I feel that some recognition that things must be fair in the future is important if these powers are to rest with ministers. In addition, there are often significant financial impacts on students as a result of the use of these powers, and, again, I think that young people would want to know that their interests would be protected.

Amendment 135 would create a right

“to repeat a school year”.

Many young people feel that they have missed out to the point that they have been significantly disadvantaged.

Amendment 144 would introduce a right to seek “an education catch-up plan”, which, again, would give young people the chance to catch up on lost learning.

That is probably enough of an explanation for now regarding the idea behind the amendments. I am interested to hear what the Government has to say.

I move amendment 127.

Certainly.

Yes.

I would be happy to bring back alternative wording at stage 3, but I hope to establish the principle that, if some regulations or individual parts of regulations are removed, those for education would be reconsidered. In the prioritisation that we used when we opened society back up, the order in which things were considered did not necessarily favour young people. They are difficult balances, but I do not think that regulations should be in place that close schools and place restrictions on young people while we are removing restrictions that were made for the same reasons. Those should have to be tested again. Do you agree?

Yes. The commissioner would have to consider that advice, consider what ministers were saying and balance that evidence with his expertise in children’s rights, welfare and wellbeing. He would have to balance up some of the difficult questions. I am not saying that the commissioner would have a veto; instead, I am saying that he would offer his views so that parliamentarians, the Government and the wider public would be more informed about where the balance lay.

During the pandemic, and particularly in the area of education, we have sometimes tipped towards a balance that considers public health narrowly without examining the wider health and wellbeing implications for young people. At several points during the pandemic, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner drew our attention to concerns. The commissioner’s involvement would be an additional safeguard that would help young people feel confident that the Government was taking their rights and interests into full consideration.

Amendment 120, which relates to local authority consent for closing schools, is a probing amendment. I am not saying that it is in its final form, but it raises a question for Parliament about the correct balance between ministerial powers and local authorities’ statutory duties to educate our young people. It would promote consensus. It is hard to envisage a situation in which local authorities would oppose public health measures, but it is important to have such a provision in the bill to ensure that the role of local authorities is properly respected.

That brings us back to the John Mason principle, which cuts both ways. There is a fear that the same people could make the same wrong decisions; equally, as hard as it is to imagine, something worse could arise in future. I would not want ministers to push ahead with school closures without being able to satisfy local authorities that it was the right decision.