���˿���

I have a brief question. I should point out that my first ever engagement with cross-party groups in the Parliament was sport related. The first email that I received as an MSP in 2007 was from the late David McLetchie and it related to a cross-party group on golf. There is a long tradition of sporting cross-party groups in the Parliament.

I am interested in the involvement of the School of Hard Knocks in the proposed cross-party group, as I have seen at first hand in my Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn constituency how it has worked with local partners to get not only young people but various sections of society that otherwise would not think about rugby as a sport for them to use it as a way of team building, team bonding, learning skills and even signposting to college for further education opportunities.

If the proposed cross-party group were to receive recognition and do any work in relation to deprived communities and vulnerable groups, I think that a wider range of ���˿��� would be interested in following that, even if they were not formal members of the group, because the School of Hard Knocks has a strong reputation.

I have followed the conversation this morning, which has been fascinating and very helpful. My question relates to Mr Dornan’s suggestion that reviewing the law on spiking could be challenging and complex. Would there be a wider benefit to reviewing the legislation on spiking, or the lack of it? That might force the Government and wider society to—yet again—review Scotland’s relationship with alcohol, which would involve engagement with women’s groups, youth groups, the licensed sector, Police Scotland and wider society. Irrespective of the complexities, would there be a wider intrinsic value in holding a consultation to see what reviewing the legislation on spiking might look like?

Convener, I think that the line of questioning from you and Willie Rennie is absolutely justified. I draw members’ attention to one line in our papers for today’s meeting. The Government’s policy note says:

“This amendment is intended to be a temporary response to specific circumstances and Ministers intend to revoke it as soon as circumstances allow.”

That is precisely what we need more information and clarity on. If the matter could be dealt with in correspondence, that would be ideal.

Thank you.

Thank you, Margaret. I appreciate that.

I would like to direct my question to Douglas Hutchison. In doing so, I declare an interest with regard to the Educational Institute of Scotland, to which I still give my union dues. I declare that before I mention the EIS survey. I also welcome Douglas Hutchison to his post in Glasgow. He has been in it only three days, and I expect that his post bag is quite voluminous already. Thank you for taking on that task.

The EIS survey found that 65.9 per cent of teachers thought that rooms were well ventilated but 29.2 per cent did not. We are short on time, but I will give one other statistic: 62.8 per cent of teachers knew that the ventilation in their rooms had been checked but 11 per cent did not. I want to ask Douglas whether he is aware of whether education leaders at a local authority level had gone back to the EIS with that survey detail and drilled down, for example, on the 29 per cent who did not think that classrooms were well ventilated or on the 11 per cent who did not know that the ventilation had been checked. That is very important data on a bit of a disconnect between some of the teachers at the coalface, who are EIS members, and some of the good practice that we have heard about from Simon Cameron. Does Douglas have a view on how that data could be used and what discussion there could be with the EIS on doing something positive in relation to that?

I am interested in what happens if that trajectory continues—I hope that it will not—and regionalised levels are far higher. If we get to a critical mass, will we have to move to the next level, with a step change in relation to exams and the additional support that is put in place, as Mr Rennie asked about?

On 7 January, the absence level for pupils due to Covid was 7.1 per cent. I am sorry that this question is not to a specific witness, convener, but does any of our witnesses know what the latest figures are for pupil absence and whether there is any modelling work showing what it is likely to be?

If the trend is down the way, that is positive and I hope that it endures.

How have schools improved at managing pupil absence? My son is at primary school and has Covid, so he is self-isolating. Within 24 hours, a core literacy and numeracy package was provided by the school along with some bespoke work that the class is doing. I suspect that, at the start of the first wave of Covid, schools were scrambling to do the best that they could, but I hope that there is a lot more finesse and capacity in the system now. Perhaps Greg Dempster is best placed to answer my question.

Staff have to be present to issue work to pupils who are self-isolating. If staff are absent and other staff are filling in doing “please takes” and everything else, there is a staff management issue in getting good-quality core resources out to pupils who are self-isolating to keep the continuity of learning. Can you say a little more about where we are now and what the constraints are in relation to making sure that we get good-quality teaching and learning packages out to young people who are self-isolating?

Yes. I have further questions—I hope that they are brief—in relation to absence levels and the stress that they put on schools. I am conscious that today’s evidence session is primarily about the pressure that omicron and Covid are still putting on education.

We have heard about teacher absence levels. We heard in the passing, from Greg Dempster, I think, that they are possibly at around 5 per cent. The figures in our briefing are that teacher and all-staff absence levels, including support staff, were 2,134 in November, 3,290 or so in the middle of December and 5,200 last week, so the trajectory is still increasing. The committee is keen to know whether the witnesses believe that it will increase further. What modelling has been done on when that will taper off and start to dip? The more increase there is, the greater strain is put on schools. We are looking at the impact on education.

I think that it was Greg Dempster who gave the 5 per cent figure, so I will bring him in. I apologise if I have got the wrong person.

That was helpful. Convener, I have no further questions, but I see that Margaret Wilson has requested to speak.