���˿���

Last week, I asked Paul Little of Colleges Scotland and Alastair Sim of Universities Scotland what specific problem they felt that the Government was trying to solve with the legislation. Neither of them could answer that question—in fact, one of them said that they were

“at a ... loss to understand”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 2 March 2022; c 7.]

the purpose of what was being proposed in the legislation.

That response came from members of the Government’s education recovery group—people who are intimately involved in this work. Do you not have a job to do in partnership working to convince key stakeholders that the legislation is necessary, and that it will help people rather than harm them?

More generally. After all—and in line with Willie Rennie’s questions—if the nursery is not there, eligible two-year-olds will not be able to access the offer. Do you undertake any exercises to understand the health of the sector?

Therefore, in essence, the legislation contains the powers to do the same things but in a slightly different form. One of the principal criticisms, and one of the reasons that the UK—England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland—has one of the worst records globally for its response to the pandemic, is that we based our response on plans for the previous pandemics. That is always a problem. Other countries have made similar mistakes, but ours have been particularly acute. At the start of the pandemic, we were thinking that we were in a flu situation, but we were not; it is a different form of virus. We put in place and used the plans and ideas that we had waiting, but we were wrong in that regard. You understand the critique and concern.

I understand that there is a balance to strike with regard to preparation and putting in place enabling legislation, powers or something from the shelf, as the convener suggested. However, if we do not really learn the lessons and analyse the situation that we are in, is that not the worst of all worlds?

We should consider the weight of the evidence. Last week, the Government presented an analysis of the responses to the consultation, in which it asked us to disregard 96 per cent of the responses because they were opposed to the bill. The remaining 4 per cent of responses came from those who had given evidence at committee, and none of them—nobody—thought that the legislation was a good idea.

You talk about building consensus. It seems that you have managed to build a consensus of opposition to what you are putting in place. Those who make up the 4 per cent are people who provide Government services, and they have issued caveats and made reasonable and reasoned objections. There is no support for the bill—nobody thinks that it is the right thing to do.

If you were endeavouring to seek consensus, you have achieved it, but it is a consensus of opposition. Have you got it wrong in the way that you are proceeding?

Alastair Sim, do you understand my characterisation of the situation?

Thank you. I have my substantive questions as well.

I strongly agree with that.

I will put a similar question to the representative from COSLA. My experience of the process is in my local authority in Dundee, in a recent consultation prior to the pandemic on merging two secondary schools. The local authority did not get the answer that it wanted, so it ran the consultation again to get that answer. My concern with the measure in the bill is about precedent. Even though it might be reasonable to agree to the emergency legislation, if we agree to it, there could be a kind of seeping situation and we could end up with no physical meetings. Does COSLA still believe that we should have physical meetings to maximise engagement, as the EIS has said?

The idea that Fergus Ewing is expounding that the pandemic was not predicted is completely wrong. Pandemics were predicted globally by many experts. They are high on risk registers internationally. We had pandemic planning activity in Scotland that was ignored by the Scottish Government and when the review that is being undertaken reports, we will get a better idea of that.

John Edward mentioned the comparison with England. Are the witnesses aware of any other international comparisons that we might look at where the response was better? I am fairly critical of the Government response in England, Wales and Scotland. Is there an international example of a legislative framework for emergency response that you are aware of that the committee and the Parliament should look at? Is there a better framework that will help us get the response correct next time?

I will come to Megan Farr on that issue in a moment.

The Scottish Government’s policy is that every child should have access to a digital device and the connectivity to enable its use, but I believe that that will not be provided until the end of this session of Parliament. Would the lack of provision post a real risk were there to be another mutation that lead to further school closures?

Does Megan Farr have any comment?