Fawr wrth gwrs, ac mae fawr i gael y 7 maes y Llywodraeth a Llywodraeth a Llywodraeth yn 2022. Mae ystafell ar gyfer yna llawer oedd y cyrion o'r Rheonavirus Recovery i Llywodraeth a Llywodraeth, Ryfyrr Gwaith, yn y bêl ysgrifennu. A mae'n rhaid i gael y cyfysgau i ddechrau ddau, gan y dyfodol ystafell ysgrifennu. Mae'n Paul Little, yr ysgrifennu gyfysgol o'r gychwyn a'r gyfysgol o'r gyfysgol o'r gyfysgol, Matthew Sweeney, policy manager, children and young people, COSLA, David Belzey, assistant secretary EIS, Diane Stockton, consultant in public health, public health Scotland, John Edward, director of the Scottish council of independent schools, and Alistair Sim, director of the University of Scotland. Paul Little, Matthew Sweeney, David Belzey and Diane Stockton are joining us remotely. Good morning to all of you and I can now see your faces on the screen, which is good. John and Alistair are with us in the committee room. Good morning to you all and thank you in advance for the evidence that you are going to share with us. Unfortunately, time is limited this morning, so please do not feel that you must answer every question that is posed. I will try my best to bring people in, but I have to ensure that the session concludes by 10.30 at the latest. Any outstanding matters can be followed up in writing, so let me start the questioning off. Let me go first of all to Alistair. Alistair, in your evidence, written evidence to the committee this morning, you say in the first paragraph, at no point has the Scottish Government had to use the emergency powers in the existing coronavirus act 2020 with regard to higher education. Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. We have worked in a very successful partnership approach with the overall framework that the Scottish Government has set to make sure that universities are successfully managing the risks and successfully supporting students through the very disruptive time that they have had. I think that that partnership arrangement has worked very well and I think that it is a model for what should be done going forward. You say that you are concerned that the bill gives ministers responsibility to make regulations at a level of detail that cannot be done competently by Government. Maybe you can explain why you say that. Yes, of course. If Government is to take emergency powers and I can understand why Government feels that emergency powers may need to be in a statute book, I think that they should be framed a bit differently from this. I think that the way that these powers are framed, this basically reproduces the coronavirus act 2020, which has produced any tearing hurry at the beginning of a crisis. I think that we have got the opportunity to step back now and think perhaps more profoundly about what is necessary and if things are necessary. From my point of view, it would be much better to have a framework where ministers are setting out the general requirements but where institutions are deciding the granular stuff, who should be coming into university in person to complete their studies, what buildings should be open, what research projects need to continue when people are doing assessments and how they are being assessed. That stuff that really needs detailed consideration at institutional level and consultation with staff and students and that frankly no Government has got a detailed local knowledge to be able to do that. So we are actually trying to help you. We are trying to say that there is an alternative framework here that will achieve your objectives and not draw you down into a level of granular detail that you are just not, you know, no Government is competent to do. Is it basically what you are basically saying is that guidance has worked during the last two years so there is no need to legislate impermanence in these areas? Is that it? I think that guidance has worked and partantry has worked very well so we don't see an absolute need to legislate but if Government is absolutely minded to legislate I think that they should do so in a way that is much more with the grain of what's worked where they can set out general requirements and make sure that the granular implementation of that is done by the people on the ground who know how to do it. You have a specific reference in your submission to us about admissions. Can you just explain what that part of the evidence is? Yes. I mean, I think, you know, from discussions with Scottish Government officials, I think looking at, I think it's 85D particularly in the bill. It does get into the business of, in the words of the bill, requiring specified people to attend a specified educational establishment. For my conversations with Scottish Government, I think part of the sort of well-intentioned objective of this section is that, for instance, if one university was closed people might be moved to a course in another university. I can see the good intention there but actually I don't think Government can just move people around like that because you don't know whether a course they're going to has got capacity, you don't know whether a course they're going to meets their academic needs. Again, I think there's quite a lot of good intention in applying this bill but it actually draws Government into making decisions that it can't really competently do and that institutions may not competently be able to implement. And this is true of student accommodation as well because there's regulation in the bill about that. What's your response to that? Again, you know, the partnership approach has worked very well here. Diane Stockton from Public Health Scotland has been at the core of that among others. I think if there's an emergency it should be the university's management and consultation with staff and students who are taking the action to decide exactly how students should be supported through the crisis and very much in consultation with the Public Health Scotland and the local health board rather than that to be a matter of ministerial direction. Government just does not know the detailed granular information on the ground to enable it to do that as well as it should be done. So give us the guidance and we'll act responsibly. That's your message. Well that's been how it's worked over the past couple of years. I think if there has to be legislation go to grain of that because it's been a successful approach. Maybe I can turn to Paul Little and in your evidence Paul Little you say on the basis of the experience, this is the experience of the college operations during the pandemic, we would advise the intended provisions which have been proposed within the bill are not required, maybe you can expand on that for us please. Why are they not required? Well many of you know, I'm principal of the largest college in Scotland and I know it's a reference to that but I'm also a member of the ministerial advisory group and indeed the subsequent Covid recovery group. So I got a real side insight into all the planning and all the response at a sector-wide and at a national level. I believe that the regulations as proposed are completely unnecessary. They are simple planning overreach and they do not address arms 1 and arms 3 and 4 nor do they in any way mitigate the lost learning that we are presently trying to port nor the mental health challenges. If you will to support what Alistair just said, my institution closed one full week before we had any advice in government to do so and during the entire two years we were ahead of the overwhelmed officials. In fact we were able to share and support them during this time. So in the challenge that we face was the particular practical learning that colleges have, the practical education, the need for access to specialist facilities and I think the understanding of that was limited at the centre. Ultimately on the front line we're best placed to support students for their mental health, support their digital learning and indeed to support their practical learning and we had a good example of that at the save the classical college. Not only did we support the local community but we were supporting care sector and the SME sector. We in fact were supporting the Mora timeshine for many of the vaccines and food that came to Scotland, came via our ships and my particular institution had 245 cadet officers at sea during the pandemic. So we were very much really on the front line in making that response and we actually had detailed plans there all to help up skill and reskill but what this particular bill doesn't do is it doesn't deal with any of the aftermath or any of the urgencies presently the college sector is facing over £15 million of potential cuts. We're not talking about that, we're talking about the potential for a future pandemic and we're dealing with the real crisis in education just. We're talking about the wrong things. Well I would prepare and I'm sure many of my education colleges would prefer to talk about how we can mitigate against lost learning, how we can support the very real self-harm and attempt at suicides in most of our student population as a deal with mental health. The long shadow of Covid has actually been further complicated by the implications of Brexit, by a decade of austerity, by any of the instability that we presently find in Eastern Europe and those are very real pressures that colleges are facing. 26 colleges right across Scotland or well over half a million learners, it's a clear and present challenge to us now. We have already demonstrated that the college sector has had an agile response to a pandemic with no such planning and no such legislation. I think that the two years of learning have stand us in good stead. Distracted by this present set of regulations won't allow us the concentration that we're going to need as I said to deal with that lost learning and indeed to deal with real day-to-day learning which is our fundamental responsibility. Paul, you've made these points directly to ministers of you. You're part of the ministerial guidance that you mentioned. You're involved with government. You've made these points directly to the ministers of you. Ministers and officials are very well aware of these points. We have a very good and strong partnership during the pandemic in supporting ministers and indeed officials and in all the public agencies to do that, so they're very well aware of that. I think that I would also add that just yesterday we published the economic transformation proposals but two years ago, one month before the pandemic, we were asked by ministers to publish the blueprint for the economic transformation colleges at that time, what was known as the cumbers for literature report. We've now passed the two-year anniversary and that hasn't been implemented. That's just another example that as we replace one priority to another priority, perhaps those priorities that are more recent or less of a priority than the new ones. Okay, that's very clear. I'm going to turn now to David Ibelzi. David, I want to quote part of your submission to you and ask you to expand on it. The EIS believes that extending such powers to extending such powers to issue regulations indefinitely could upset the balance of power between local authorities and the Scottish Government. Can you explain that please? Thank you, convener. I think that the submission to the Parliament regarding the bill sets out the concern that the EIS has that whilst we welcome Government powers to closed schools during a pandemic and the regulation and the statute behind that to exist, were those powers to be extended indefinitely, as is suggested by the bill, then it gives a degree of power and oversight over schools and thereby over local authorities that does not currently exist. Whilst the intention today is to protect and maintain education provision, in the future it may have unintended consequences, because there is a very delicate balance between the role of Governments in delivering strategic oversight and funding for education and the role of local authorities in carrying out and delivering education on the ground. The Government's previous work in the previous education bill looked at the balance between Government and local authorities and decided to keep the current balance. That is what we are setting out there. We believe that, within a public health emergency, the Government should have those powers in effect taking strategic control over school closures and re-openings. Is that because, during the past two years, there was a breakdown in the competence of the ability of local authorities to make those decisions for themselves? In your submission, you said that the EIS would like to have seen an explicit delegation to local authorities to also make decisions to close schools to move to remote platforms in interest. You are basically saying, in your submission, that you feel that local authorities, with guidance from the centre, should be making those decisions on the basis of delegated authority, which they already have. Is that correct? No, what we are saying is that, at the moment, the opening and closing of schools remain within the power of the Government acting with the public health authorities. There is very limited ability for a local authority to close a school. You had some schools in Glasgow that had hundreds of pupils ill, which had large numbers of teachers ill, but because they could get in supply teachers to physically staff and by merging classes and so forth, they kept the school open. The local authority, as we understand it, did not have the lawful authority to close the school on public health grounds on its own basis. What we are saying is that the Government should have strategic oversight and it should make those decisions, but also that local authorities should be able to close the school and move to online learning as well. We are looking for greater flexibility. That is not a reflection on the Government's ability or its right to make strategic decisions for Scotland as a whole. Right. I think that I understand that. What you are arguing for is what I said, that you feel that the local authorities should have that power. I must confess that I thought that local authorities already could close schools. Not for public health grounds, only if they cannot physically staff a school, then they can close it down. However, if they want to close it down on public health grounds, they have to get permission from the local public health authorities and, effectively, the Scottish Government. When we were looking to close schools before Christmas 2020 in order to protect staff and pupils, local authorities were telling us that they couldn't close schools down early before Christmas because of the way in which the powers were set out. That is very interesting. Michael Marra, do you want to come in on schools? Can I have a brief supplementary to the question to Paul Little and Alasdair Sim? In the first instance, I was quite intrigued by what perhaps Paul first of all did not happen in the last two years that the Government wanted to happen. It seems to me that, if they are asking for more power to direct, what were the things that did not happen? What is the problem that they are trying to solve here? I am a little bit of a loss to understand that, because such was the very close work in relationship and almost real-time day-to-day and 24-hour accessibility. In my opinion, there were no problems that were left unresolved during the emergency response. Problems that were left unresolved were the response that was going to the next stage, such as the loss of learning and mental health and the understanding that different institutions have different requirements. There really was not a full realisation that the nature of college education was over perhaps three quarters. It was about practical learning, practical instruction and workshop. That was not probably fully understood in that regard. However, I felt that the response was a very good response between the Government and the colleges and indeed the wider university and tertiary sector. In fact, I would argue that it was a lifeline to communities and a lifeline to businesses in that. I was not aware, either as a college principal or indeed as a member of those advisory groups, that we were feeling in that response. That is why I believe that this is completely unnecessary. I do not believe that it would address the harms in three and four, which are the social harms or indeed the economic harms. In fact, it was a very late realisation that they were real and present harms as part of that response. Do you understand my characterisation of that? In a sense, my answer is exactly the same as Paul Little's. The emergency power set in the coronavirus act 2020 that this bill effectively mirrors did not need to be used because the partnership approach was successful. At any point that there was a Government or ministers were asking you and your colleagues in universities to do something, and the universities were just saying, no, we can't do it. Now this kind of more of a power take to the centre to make that happen, to compel you. You do not recall conversations along those lines. That was not required. Obviously, through the group that Paul referred to, there is a constant dialogue going on between the sector, trade unions, the student movement and government about what should be done. That is a forum in which different views are tested and usually come to consensus. However, at no point did Poochcom to shove, and emergency powers have to be used. Before you do so, I just want to get my head straight here. One last question to David from the EIS. Is the EIS argument the opposite of what the bill does? Are you saying that powers need to be given from the Government to local authorities? Is that the rebalancing that you are talking about? No. What we are talking about is that local authorities should have the powers to close schools on public health grounds as well. That is what I am saying. Your argument is that that power should be given to local authorities. Yes, it should have the ability to close schools. You do not have it, which is the opposite of what the intent of the bill is, which is to bring powers to the centre. The bill is in many ways setting out the regulatory and statute bedrock from which I imagine that they will probably operate in a different way in reality along the way that Paul and Alice have explained. In other words, there is a way of making universities and colleges follow education continuity directives at present, but they do not do so. They have followed a partnership approach. The Government is putting the statutory bedrock down for continuing the powers that they have now, but we are saying that we have no problems with that, but we would also like, in addition, not local flexibility for councils to make on grounds of public health not simply staffing the ability to close schools. We do not see that as a contradiction, we simply say it as something that is complementary. I have half the committee that wants to come in, but before I bring the committee in, Matthew Sweeney wants to come in as well.  Thank you, convener. It was just to sort of come in with some of where we are around this. I think that the first thing that we would say is that I agree with some of the discussions that we have had so far. Local authorities do not have the power. However, under the 1975 regulations, the appropriate person, I think, is the legal term within a health board. Most often, I think that in practice, the director of public health does have that ability to sort of do it on that school-by-school basis. I think that what we are talking about in terms of this legislation is around what happens if we are in a situation like in March 2020 when there is need to take sort of national level action on that. I do not think that there has been a clear legislative vehicle to do that before the emergency act. I think that what part of the things that we are quite mindful of is that the international council of education advisers have been clear that the pandemic may become more frequent in the future. I think that that is why we sort of see somewhat of a need around this. I think that in terms of what my members are interested in, there is potentially, I think, perhaps quite different in the space of schools compared to our colleagues in further and higher education, that there is a duty for us to provide education to every single child within our area. Therefore, there was a legal protection that was given to our members by the waiving of some of the duties through the use of the continuity in directions. That meant that some of the mitigations and closures may have been controversial. If there was additional support and comfort that local authorities had in giving the cover around national direction based on strong partnership working, that would have been very important. Do you need legislation to do that? Given that there seems to be a pretty robust framework already around authorities that you have just described, why do we need new legislation then? I think that the difference is that, if we are in a situation where there is a need of when we are in a new virus, in the same way that we had with coronavirus, where there was a need to take action on a nationwide level, it can make sense to be where we are. It also brings in the additional resources and support that was achieved through close working with government. However, I think that what I would be clear about is that we are really clear that we need the bill to be changed to make sure that there is close engagement and consultation with local authorities before any direction is created. Right. Oliver Mundell and then Willie Rennie. Thank you, convener. I want to go back to EIS to David with a question whether that same kind of discretion should be given to headteachers within schools. It is well and good to say that the local authority should have the power to shut a school on health grounds. The example that you cite in Glasgow, other experiences that I have seen in my constituency are often difficult judgment calls and surely the person who knows the school, the young people, the community best should have a say in that decision, too. I think that headteachers should have a say, but the final decision should be taken by the local authority. I am curious about that. Surely it does not matter who makes the final call, because the professional advice from the public health officials will be the same no matter who is making the decision. Why is it necessary to have multiple people legally entitled to close the school when the advice is going to be the same? Surely the issue here is making sure that we have the right advice about how to proceed and clear authority and partnership to make it happen. Why is it necessary to have multiple bodies making the call? I think that, as Paul Matthew set out a few minutes ago, having a national ability to close all schools in response to a national emergency seems a worthwhile lever to have. Sometimes the events within a particular community or school are developed in such a way that we believe that that school should have been closed. A number of schools should have been closed, yet we put our requests, our views to the local authority, and the local authority says to us that we cannot legally close that school on public health grounds. There might be 400 kids off, there might be kids sitting in a school hall with supply teachers, and, strangely enough, some pupils may even benefit from having a remote teaching at home. However, the local authorities are unable to close that school because they do not have the authority to do so. What we are saying is that we believe that the local authority should have the flexibility, in addition to the powers that the Government would have under the bill, that the local authority should also have the ability to close that school. Michael, I am going to come back to you in a moment, but I am going to bring in Ross and then James Dornan. Ross, go back to some of the points that Alasdair made. I understand entirely the line of argument that the partnership approach taken in this pandemic was successful, so why would we wish to alter that? Surely that is on the assumption that the people involved next time on either side will be as reasonable and as willing to co-operate as they were last time. We generally do not make laws on the basis of the individuals around the table at any particular time. Those are laws that are proposed to be there on a permanent basis. Should we pursue that line of argument that partnership work will definitely work next time? Is the point of that not to have that back-up option in place if those partnerships break down? I think that if there has to be legislation, there has to be legislation that works. That is really what we are saying in our paper, that if you are to have emergency powers legislation, have emergency powers legislation that goes with the grain of what has already been proven to work. One could conceive ministers, for instance, taking emergency powers that enabled them to see at a level of generality look, there is a really severe public health emergency. The access to in-person provision at universities has to be restricted. Students are prioritised who are about to sit their final exams or who have practical learning or who are about to graduate from the health disciplines and go and address the crisis. However, if ministers have the power under emergency legislation to see that at a generality, it has to be up to institutions with their staff and students to implement that at the level of granularity that is needed considering what students need to come in, what courses need to continue, what experiments need to continue, what buildings need to be open. Our problem with the way that emergency powers are framed here is that it actually draws ministers into making those decisions that need to be made locally within an overall framework set by government. If there has to be emergency legislation, let it be emergency legislation that works by giving ministers and government their proper role in setting out overall requirements and giving the managers, staff and students at institutional level the real granular responsibility for making the decisions that implement that. Do you think that the Government's intention in bringing that forward is to, on a wholesale basis, make decisions on the granular level that you are talking about? My assumption about the intention here is that, of course, the partnership approach that we have pursued up until now would be the preference, but it cannot be guaranteed that every partner is going to be co-operative in the future. Universities themselves were a very good example of that level of co-operation with Government. Some of the private student accommodation providers, for example, were not. Surely it is better for the Government to have that ability to intervene on a granular level, not with the intention of doing so wholesale across the country in every institution, in every instance, but in the instances where there is someone who is not co-operating with whether it is local public health teams, the local authorities or the Scottish Government directly. We cannot guarantee that everyone is going to want to take a partnership approach next time, but surely the Government needs the ability to intervene on a granular level if and when that is necessary, even if it is regrettable that that is the case. I think that if the Government takes general powers to require emergency things to be done during a public health emergency and a particular institution or a particular provider of purpose-built student accommodation is not doing it, they can take them to court. They have remedies there and they can just get in there and insist that it is done, but I do not think that the Government to get in there and say that a particular building has to be closed or to prescribe the access arrangements to a particular building or to say exactly course by course who should still be coming in to get some in-person provision, because I simply do not think that Government is competent to do that. That is no criticism of any particular administration, it is just drawing Government deeply into areas where Government cannot know enough at the granular level to exercise those powers well. I am cautious that that was supplementary, but there is just one more follow-up convener. Just on that point of the Government's ability to take anyone to court, but in that case specifically that the Government's ability to take an institution to court, the context for this here is that if we face another pandemic that forces us into making decisions on an hour-by-hour basis and that, with the best while in the world, pursuing court action cannot result in a response as quickly as you might like in the case of a public health emergency issue, that is exactly what we are talking about here, is that on the day or in the space of a couple of days being faced with having to make decisions so urgently that if the partnership approach does not work, by the time you have gone to court to get it resolved, the situation has either got markedly worse in an unavoidable way or it has not. Is this not about, this is about reflecting the urgency of a future pandemic? I think the same is true however you exercise those powers, even if ministers took those granular powers, I mean they may well find that they are actually not able to be exercised on the ground and you might end up with a dispute which us to get sorted in court one would hope not. But I mean I think if the law, if ministers frame emergency powers in our view better than they are currently framed because this was all done in a rush in March 2020 so it should you know I think this is a time for thoughtful reflection on what works. So you know if ministers were to set you know to take a framework that allows them to prescribe the general requirements and for those to be local in the moment that's the law people just got to go on and do it. Thanks very much. That was useful. Right, very good. And now with James Dornan. Thank you, convener. Alice Assum and Paul Little have made a lot about this legislation being unnecessary but given that they've just told us how they've been able to work in partnership during the 2020, when the 2020 powers were involved then why is there a problem with this? I mean they obviously accept and this has fallen on from Ross's I suppose because the Government must surely have powers to act quickly when required but you've got to be able to in this case you must be trusting the Government because you've just worked with them for a number of years with the 2020 legislation so what's the panic for in your responses for these powers? If I may come in just to quote exactly from our submission it actually says, we recognise the case of ministers to have emergency powers in the event of another severe new public health crisis even though we hope these will never have to be used but if there are to be emergency powers we want to be these to be operable in a way that protects public health and takes account of the four harms and will be operable on the ground that's what we're trying to achieve here we're not actually having a dispute from first principles with Government we're trying to help Government and Parliament to frame emergency provisions if Government which is to be emergency provisions in a way that we believe will be better operable than what's here which reflects what was done in any rush in the coronavirus act 2020 at the very beginning of the crisis. Does anyone know? But your evidence is that that's worked well, that the Government has been working with you so what makes you suggest or make you think that if this legislation comes through that the Government will stop working well with the universities and the colleges? Oh we would certainly hope that they would but you know taking up points that have already been made in this meeting you know the law is the law we have to make sure that it's something that is operable you know whoever happens to be in in our various positions when the next emergency hits us. Thank you. I'm going to bring in Diane Stockton. Yeah I was just going to come in on to explain how it works when there's a significant outbreak in a school so what will happen or what has happened is that there would be a meeting of the local public health team and the school senior staff, the head staff and local authority representatives and that's where the discussion would occur around you know whether the school should shut so that's I take the point of what David's been saying but that there should be a comprehensive discussion and from the public health side we would be considering you know the wider harms the wider picture in in shutting a school on public health grounds it's quite unusual to shut the schools to have been shut on public health grounds in the pandemic so far so they have been shut for reasons of staffing more often thanks. No that that's very useful that's very useful Bob Doris. Thank you, convener. It was Alison's comment earlier about the mirroring of the 2020 emergency coronavirus powers and the powers that the Scottish Government is seeking to take in this bill. I think there was an equivalent strong and I'm just wondering if the 2020 powers were fit for purpose as a partnership working meeting that they never actually had to be exercised with universities and colleges what was the difference with the set of powers? Well I think that the 2020 powers indeed never needed to be used I think we would doubt whether if they had to be used whether they were actually genuinely operable because you know that what's in schedule 16 and 17 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 does get ministers into this extremely granular level of deciding who should be coming on a course what buildings should be opened what buildings should be closed what your opening times are when you should set assessments and you know that this I think government if government had reached for those emergency powers they might have found them actually quite problematic to use which is why we are trying to help government and parliament here to find a framework that actually will be more robust and operable and that will go with the grain of you know two years experiment of what actually works. I'm interested to know what criticism you made at the time and my apologies Mr Symphony didn't make because it sounds at the time that the very informative to the committee in 2020 what criticisms did you make of the emergency powers at that point and I think you're conceding constructively so that there is the need for emergency powers a framework emergency power to put in place now also what changes would you make to the current proposals? Well I think the emergency powers went through parliament in four days in 2020 so there really wasn't an opportunity for a stakeholder. By 2020 last year Mr Symphony did you make constant conversations with the government you said how constructive your dialogue was with the government I assume you must have mentioned to government what parts of those powers you weren't happy with at some point during 2020? It never came up because he never had to be reached for you know certainly when those powers went through you know we we you know there was not really an opportunity actually for effective parliamentary or stakeholder scrutiny which is why I think it's important to take the time now to make sure that if there are to be emergency powers that they are crafted well and are operable rather than just reproducing what was done you know frankly in a rush in 2020 and what we've suggested in our paper here is an alternative approach which we think actually government would find more operable which is to get ministers you know give ministers the powers that if they have emergency legislation they clearly should have powers to say at a general level you know here are the sort of restrictions that need to be imposed to control a public health emergency and here at a general level are sort of exceptions that need to be made to provide continuity of education to look after students welfare to look after educational needs and to require the people on the ground to make the granular decisions to implement that. Presumably if the government needed further emergency powers we could have a repetition of what happened in 2020 with the four-day turnaround of legislation. Yeah, of course. But Mr Simmons just said that four days wasn't enough so that the scrutiny were happening just now is a lot longer than four days convener but Mr Simmons said that's helpful to know that he confirmed he didn't miss any concerns at all at any point in 2020. Mr Little did you raise concerns in 2020 about the powers? Because of the good partnership work and we didn't have concerns but colleges have experienced overreach. The previous legislation, the post-16 bill, that's reduced. Mr Little, can you stick to this legislation in 2020 to raise concerns? Well, the concern would be that the institutional autonomy will be further eroded. Did you raise those concerns in 2020? We raise concerns of the throughput of officials who had to enact this legislation. As I said earlier, the officials were overwhelmed and there was such a throughput of officials. If there is not the institutional autonomy, you will not in the next pandemic have an agile response, you will not have the community response, the economic response, the educational response, and the safety response that you're going to require particularly in my own situation a very large metropolitan economy and a very large metropolitan institution. If you receive weekly or even daily diktat because you're trying to create a bureaucratic response to what actually should be an agile response, then it's a real danger that we will not have us in a bite of response as we have in 2020. Mr Little, can I just share the information? I'm going to move the question on now. I'm going to move the question. I'm going to diktat. I think that we just created the validity there. Thank you, Bob. We're going to move on. I want to bring in David Belcy. The IIS is the sole recognised trade union for FE lecturers and we're recognised in the HE sector too, so we too have been together with Paul and Alistair on the advanced learning Covid recovery group. I'd like to make a couple of observations around what University of Scotland is saying about its plans. At the moment, what the Government has done is put itself in a position where it's got the ability to use statutory powers, but it's then issued and worked in partnership to develop detailed guidance, prescribed guidance, for further and higher education, together with all the representatives and the major stakeholders of the two sectors. I think that process, or the IIS believes that process, has worked well, particularly in colleges. Colleges, I think, have delivered the education in a quick, agile way and protected staff as well and students, and we've had very few problems across the college sector. The university sector has been slightly different. Some universities have been pushing the envelope and requiring our members to go in, even when there was a detailed, prescribed FNHE guidance. I think that, on the whole, it's worked well, but the ability for the Government to sit back and rely on statutory guidance, if necessary, or statutory powers, I should say, if necessary, I think is welcome. Ultimately, I don't think that the granularity that the University of Scotland is talking about, that the Government would seem to wish, would be a factor. I don't think that any Government can control individual buildings across the university estates, and we don't welcome that, but we do have concerns with what the University of Scotland is proposing, which is a general framework in which there is no trade union involvement at all at a local level, and it talks about staff representatives, and it loses the close amount of collaborative working that has been taking place in the two years, which we are keen to maintain. I think that there needs to be the views of the workers within those two sectors as well as simply the senior leadership. Paul Little I mean, I would just say that we're trying to get evidence-based policymaking evidence in the legislation here, and what we find is, in the college sector, across 265,000 students, there's a 93 per cent satisfaction in having this review in the colleges. So our response during this pandemic has been heightened, but in addition to that, we have demonstrated a constant partnership, a constant dialogue with ministers, with officials, with our partners in the trade unions and universities, indeed, with community learning and development. That two years of evidence is worth something to remember, and the leaders that have been experiencing that will still be leading the colleges if there's a further virus that emerges or, indeed, the learning that we have got. We have captured that in writing, we have captured that for the next generation of leaders who may be unfortunate enough to face this experience. The challenge is that you want your institutions to have an agile response.  Thank you, convener. I'm listening carefully. Going back to the start of the pandemic, we all were willing to tolerate things that maybe we wouldn't have normally been comfortable with in legislation, but I think that the question from what you're saying this morning is whether things have moved on. Obviously, partnership is important, but so, too, is proportionality. I just wanted to clarify that, from what you're saying, you don't feel that this legislation is proportionate to the scale of the task or the degree of emergency that we face. I'm happy to take a comment from anyone. Well, maybe we can bring John in, because he's been sitting very patiently there, and I worry that we haven't heard from you. John. On that point, our issue with the proposal is there are two issues on principle and one issue in practice. The first issue on principle, which I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned at all this morning, is that my Government and my Parliament has already established a formal inquiry into Covid-19 under the leadership of Lady Paul, and it seems to me that if we're going to legislate subsequently to learn the lessons of Covid-19, we should wait to the public inquiry that is established particularly to learn the lessons of Covid-19 before we then start legislating for especially as we're not out of Covid-19 yet. So it seems to me that there's a very, very sophisticated process to learn what's worked and what hasn't there. The other point of principle for us is a simple one, and it's slightly different, I recognise from my other colleagues, is that our institutions are entirely autonomous. Independent in the name is a bit of a giveaway. So a piece of legislation that requires the trustees and the governors of independent institutions, where the mainstream or special needs to do certain things, which they may or may not entirely agree with, I think needs a lot of scrutiny. And I go back on what everyone else has said. We haven't had any issues. I can make one example in the last two years when we had a difference of opinion with the civil servants that we have worked extremely closely with, as we have with Public Health Scotland and infection control groups in Public Health, NHS Board and so on. That was the isolation, extended isolation of boarding pupils in residences beyond what was required for other individuals, and we didn't see that as being proportionate or necessary. Indeed, the biggest risk that boarding school pupils from abroad ran was picking up infections in local communities. Every figure showed that they were in a safer place being inside than out. So we had no issues with the way it's done, and people have talked about people's panic about opposing this proposal, but there's no panic. Just as there was no panic over the two years in terms of dealing with the measures put in place, our schools, although entirely autonomous, all closed on exactly the same day as every local authority school, and they would do it again. The system works if that is the system. If it's not the system, then let's wait and see what the community says through the inquiry to decide what it is. The point on practicality is simply that what works for a small alternative school in the car park of Cameron, Tolen and Edinburgh does not work for a large residential school in the woods of Elgin, and therefore having a government-level responsibility to do this, I think, does take us away a bit from, which we see in, for instance, extreme weather situations. If there is extreme weather in the east of Scotland, our schools in the west of Scotland do not shut. It is extreme weather and one end of Aberdeen. Our schools in the other end of Aberdeen don't necessarily shut. To me, it's the same principle. Our schools have worked very, very closely with public health, very, very closely with the government, and have made the best of the appalling situation that we've all been through for the past two years. We simply don't understand the need for an obligation on us beyond the obligation that we have demonstrated to operate through the last two years to keep the continuity of education, to try to stop attainment from dropping, to protect the mental health of our pupils. In that respect, we would be more than happy for the next period to work with what we've got, rather than seek to replace it with something else. Thank you very much, John. That was very, very helpful. Now, finally, back to Michael Marra. Oh, do you want to… I don't want to… Very short, because Michael Marra has also been sitting patiently now for about half an hour. I want to go to… I'm sure it is worth to wait, Michael. I wanted to go to Public Health Scotland. I really was just to push on that point. In terms of building public trust and confidence, moving forward in terms of encouraging people to continue to follow the guidance as we move into the next stage, how important is proportionality? How important is it that the legislation matches the situation and the level of emergency and fear people feel across the country? Who was that addressed to? Public Health Scotland. Is that something that's factored in how the public has a whole, how organisations feel, how decision makers feel, if the legislation that's on the statute books is out of step with the perceived risk and the state of emergency that they see us to be in? Thanks, Oliver. Obviously, communications really has become more and more important especially during the summer cron stage, I would say, of the pandemic as the perceived risks have reduced and having consistent messaging has become more and more important across sectors, across public health, across the Government in terms of the importance of mitigations, the speed of reduction of mitigations, balancing the anxieties of some of the population as mitigations are relaxed versus the speed that others want to see it relaxed. I think that it's a very tricky balance. We're constantly looking at the evidence. Do you think that something's gone wrong in that communication when you've got senior people within a wide range of organisations coming forward and effectively saying that the Government legislation is an overreach? Does that not break down some of the trust and partnership and confidence that's been built up over the last two years? Does that not put public health at risk? My view on the communications is that it's been very consistent, so what different organisations are saying has been very consistent and that very strong partnership working that the other witnesses have talked about has come through in terms of the consistent messaging that's been put across. Obviously, if that did break down and if different messages were coming from different sectors, that would be a problem for public trust, but so far it feels to me that we've had very strong and consistent messaging around the key issues. I want to move on to chapter 2, part 2, on the consultations for changes to school of state and provision. I'll hopefully keep it reasonably brief. When those proposals first emerged, there was some concern that was certainly voiced to me regarding a power shift to central government, but this is about the consultation process and taking people's views on board. I note from the EIS submission that it believes that any moves to remove public meetings from that process for the consultations on whether a school should close permanently in regards to or move to be merged with another one. Maybe the colleague from the EIS set out why they think that it's particularly important that those physical meetings are continued. I don't think we've caught the start of that if you answered, David, if you could maybe start. There is a digital divide. Some people are able to join in online meetings whilst others are not. For some people it is easier to obtain printed materials and then to attend a meeting in person. There has never been, to our knowledge, a concern expressed regarding the process in which current consultations are carried out in person and therefore any change that reduces in person contact and replaces it with online is something that may mean that fewer teachers or parents or local community members are able to engage with it. We've suggested in our submission that hybrid meetings may be possible. The benefits of fewer people attending a meeting by some of them going online may help the public health or address the public health risks of holding meetings in person. For consultations regarding changes to schools, we are very clear that we want the maximum number of people being able to engage with the process and that would suggest that they can do so in the maximum number of ways, digital and in person. I strongly agree with that. I can put a similar question to a representative from COSLA, if that's okay, convener. My experience of the process is that local authorities—I know my own local authority in Dundee in recent consultation in the past couple of years prior to the pandemic—closed and merged two secondary schools and did not get the answer that they wanted. I suppose that my concern around that is about precedent. If we put that through this, there's a kind of a seeping situation where we could end up with no physical meetings and we put through the measures that legislation is a reasonable thing to do. Does COSLA still believe that we should be having the kind of either physical meetings that produce that kind of level maximising engagement that the EIS are expressing as well? In the broadest sense, I think that we have, for some time, raised with the Government the fact that we think that some of the aspects of the 2010 act are quite burdensome. In fact, I think that if you look at the process—perhaps not in the example that you make, but a case where a school has been mothballed and there's been the consultation that goes on then around that, that's been the case for some years. I mean, there's another consultation that goes on around closure that we feel that, actually, that is quite a burdensome process and quite a challenging one then, that one that takes a lot of resource. I think that that's something that genuinely we feel around the 2010 act. I think that where this comes from, and again I think that the point that we've been really clear on here is that this is only around the use of public meetings during a pandemic, is the fact that during some of the last year there were fake periods of times where across figures of the country it was impossible to have people together inside at all. Because the flexibility was not given to councils, they were required to either pause their processes, which meant that they were doing planning perhaps around opening up new nurseries or the 1140 Eris expansion or in thinking around the future of the school estate. Some of those processes were put on pause and it meant that we weren't able to go and have the conversations that we needed to have and make sure that everyone was understanding about some of the steps that we needed to take to improve services for communities, et cetera. So I think that that's the crucial thing here, as we're talking about in a situation where there's a public health crisis where everywhere else there's been a limit on the number of people who can meet indoors. I think more broadly if there is a conversation around when it is safe to do so, absolutely that we would still support public meetings. Do you think that it would be useful within the legislation to signal that we should have the maximum participation possible? There should be a duty on local authorities to maximise participation in those forms of consultation. Would that be a reasonable position? I don't think that that would be unreasonable, but I think that it should be within the best endeavours, would be the words that we'd take, because I think that local authorities would, and as throughout the pandemic, across a number of areas, there have been best endeavours and attempts to make sure that we didn't make as successful as possible, not just in school consultations, but more broadly. However, there have been real challenges that have put some of the stuff from the digital divide that has been raised by others in the panel that we agree with, and I think that it's a really important work for us all collectively to make sure that we're preparing for the future and at the sort of how we upskill and ensure that devices are available to all. Okay, thank you, thank you. Fergus Ewing. Thank you. The Covid pandemic took us and everybody else by surprise, and if there is a future pandemic, that will be the case as well. I recognise and want to thank all the institutions that are represented today and local government for the work that they did during the pandemic, and I value that, and the partnership approach is one that the Scottish Government, and I'm perfectly sure, will always continue to take as a central way of operating. I don't think that anyone would dispute that, but there does seem, convener, to be an elephant in the room in this discussion on who's presence has been so far ignored, and that is that, in a pandemic, there is a need for speed, and although Mr Edward is quite correct, I think, in saying that it would be desirable if we could pass this legislation after Lady Poole's inquiry findings are known, as far as I know, there's no time limit in that, and it may well be a long time before that we reach that stage. Convener, it seems to me that all of us as Democrats want consultation, participation, but we must also recognise that, in a pandemic, there is a need for speed, and delay of even a few days can be critical. Therefore, could I put it to particularly Mr Simmond, Mr Little, that even if there is a substance to some of their arguments, and I'll be interested to see what the cabinet secretary says about some of the arguments about the detail, the granular detail, and hear why those powers are necessary. Nonetheless, in principle, if the Government can all act quickly, as they can in England where they already have those powers and they've had them for 10 years, then surely that must carry with it a very serious risk to public health, and that is not something that any of us should be willing to sole-promit or accept. I could maybe just refer back to what I said to Mr Dornan, which was what we're actually trying to do here is make sure that if there has to be emergency legislation, there's emergency legislation that's crafted well so that it can be used well at speed in the event of another unforeseen, severe public health emergency. I think that it will be used better at speed if ministers are able to say in general terms what should be done, for instance, to say that there should be severe restrictions on in-person learning because of the emergency and let institutions get on with the granular implementation of an overall direction so that they can decide course by course, student by student, who are the people who absolutely need to be there within the overall strictures imposed by five ministers because ministers can't do that. With respect, how long is this going to take? I'm advised that it's not a world with which I'm familiar that the decision-making process in universities can be done swiftly, but matters of a week, we have seen very serious criticism of both Governments, Scotland and the Westminster Government, that they've acted too slowly. Now, whether these criticisms are founded or not, time will tell, the inquiry will look into this, but I think that many people suspect that if decisions were taken, there were the right decisions, but not taken quickly enough. Aren't you proposing an inbuilt system that will inevitably lead to delay because you add to the Scottish Government process, which would involve making the decisions, but in close consultation with your members and universities? To add to that, you then overlay a college or university consultation process. You could lose, even if you do it in a week. Surely, that's too late, and that is the whole point. I think that what we're proposing would be quicker because ministers wouldn't have to come up for the list of saying, are there podiatrists in our list or not, or have we thought about every possible health discipline that should be prioritised for continuing education? I think that if they say, here's our broad priorities, the experience of the pandemic is universities, winning a day, two days, extremely quickly, will decide what needs to be closed, what needs to be opened within that general structure, so I think that we're actually trying to put something quicker in there. Yes, with respect, sir, what would happen if there's a disagreement? My point is that in a pandemic, there has to be emergency action, and at the end of the day, if the Government don't have power to do something, then, as Mr Greer has pointed out, you could end up in the courts, and by that time, it's all too late. Thousands of other people have got the virus, so I don't really think with respect that the argument that you're making is well-intentioned, and no doubt discussions can be had about the granular detail in any event because, in my experience and Government, officials were constantly working closely with those affected, as I think you've indicated yourself, but surely you must accept, as a point in principle, the buck stops with the Government if they don't have the powers. They could end up in a situation where they cannot take the action necessary on the basis of the public health evidence to protect public health in Scotland. I think that the Government, as we've described in our paper, we see a case for the Government having emergency powers. We think that those will be used more swiftly and more effectively, if the Government says that an over-level action is required here is what emergency action is required, and then let's see institutions and, indeed, hold the institutions accountable for getting on with it. Let's also bring in Paul Little, Fergus. Let's have Paul Little, yes. And then we'll hear from John Edward. I think that Fergus is talking about a future pandemic. What I want to reinforce is that there's a present crisis today. We are not talking about lost learning enough. We are not talking about the swinging cuts that are facing colleges, and I can't wait for them to come. I have to plan for them now, should they come. Potentially, I have to plan to reduce 1,300 learning places to cut 70 courses. I have to plan to help well over 1,000 learners to catch up on their learning. I have to plan for mental health responses. I have to deal with the attempted suicide that I had last weekend. I have to deal with the self-arm that happened yesterday. Those are very real issues. At the same time as that, I have to help the upskilling and restilling of the city centres. I have a number of distressed economic sectors in retail, in construction and, for example, in hospitality. Those need to be upskilled and reskilled. During the pandemic, we were able to help 10,000 employees, but there is even more coming. I have to help the mothers who are new to Glasgow and wish to learn English as a second other language. I am presently only able to help 1,700. There are 10,000 on the way forward. I am aware from previous work with Paul Little of the good work that he does in his college, and I applaud him for that, and I value that. With respect, sir, this is not what we are here to talk about today. It is very important, but it is not the question that I ask. Behind you, to your left, there is a plaque that assumes that it is yours, just behind you to your left, which has got the Latin motto, semper paratus, which, as I understand, means always ready. My point is that governments must be always ready, and unless they have the emergency powers, they cannot act swiftly. That is the point. We are not going to be semper paratus. We will be unprepared without the necessary powers that may be necessary, because in a future pandemic, convener, the problems we have may be slightly different or entirely different from the problems that we have faced in the Covid pandemic. History does not repeat itself precisely in many respects. We need to be ready, Paul, for the future. That is what I asked. It was not about the other problems that you face. I am not in any way denigrating your raising them, but they are not relevant to today. With respect, I think that both yourself and Mr Sim have protested too much today and not accepted the absolute fundamental principle that governments—and this is the case with the UK Government—have to be able to act swiftly. Can I ask you to ask a question so that we can move on? Professor Little does not accept that governments must have powers to act swiftly and it is not possible to know in advance precisely what action must be taken. At the end of the day, it must be the Government that has these powers. Otherwise, we are not able to protect public health. I will trade you Carpe diem for Semper for others. The challenges of our experience of previous Government legislation as pertaining to the college sector is that it is being burdensome. It is actually better colleges' ability to respond in an educational way, and this legislation might feather that response in an emergency way. That is based on our experience. We are dealing with experience and learning from it. If there is further legislation that will feather colleges, then that is going to substantially undermine institutional autonomy and the institutional response in an economic, social and educational way. That is based on experience of right here, right now and since the last piece of legislation was enacted to college. I appreciate your kind comments by what we have achieved so far. I want to come back on a couple of things. The first was on speed. I was in a meeting of the SQA contingency group, which had not met for over 10 years in Victoria Key one day, and examinations were cancelled within 48 hours and schools were closed that week. Speed is not a problem. Indeed, we were in some cases ahead of England, which, as has been pointed out, had different legislation. In some cases, we were behind. England had as many problems as the rest of us in terms of getting the story correct, so I do not think that there is necessarily any comparison to draw there. The other thing that I would say is that I would go back to our autonomy. The proposals here present a financial risk, as well as a governance risk to our institutions, and I am not naive enough to expect that, if I came begging for a huge amount of financial support, that our sector would be front of the queue in any part of Scotland, and I do not expect that it would be. However, I will say that the idea that any of our institutions, any of our staff, or any of our governing boards would not put public health absolutely at the top of whatever they would do in any situation is, frankly, laughable. Protecting public health, protecting the wellbeing, the health, the advancement and the development of the people in our care is our number one, our sole priority. The idea that it requires legislation for us to do what is right by them, I think, is wide of the mark. The idea that Fergus Ewing is expounding that this pandemic was not predicted, I think, was 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. When the review that is being undertaken comes through, we will get a better idea of that. I want to, John Edward mentioned comparison with England. Are members on the panel aware of any other international comparisons that we might look up, where the response was better? I am fairly critical of the response in England, Wales and in Scotland in terms of the Government. Is there a legislative framework for emergency response internationally with partners that you are aware of that we should be looking at, both as a committee and a Parliament, that is a better framework so that we can get the response correct next time? I will be honest, I do not know. Everyone has been operating in different legislative contexts. It would be really interesting to know. Our nose has probably been too close to Gringstone in the past two years to have that look. I think that that is my point, convener, that it would be better that we are looking at this legislation in a broader sense, where we can understand the impact of the pandemic. We do this properly and we do not legislate a haste and repent a leisure. As we conclude the session, I am going to turn to our panellists and just ask them if there is anything that they would like to add to the evidence that they have given us this morning. Maybe the conversation has not gone in that direction, but it is something that you feel that you need to get on to our record, because you are informing us in a very important way about how we proceed with this legislation. Could I respond to a point that I meant to respond to earlier that David Belzey made, which is that the partnership with students and staff, trade unions and student associations has been incredibly important. To pick up on a point that David Belzey made, actually our proposal does specifically say that that consultation with student and staff representatives would continue to be a really important part of any structure of addressing a further emergency. And was there anything further that you wanted to add, Alistair Sim? No, that is it, thank you. Paul Little To reinforce the fact that colleges were not only part of the saving lives, but we were very much part of the saving livelihoods, and that is on-going. We will be very much part, probably for the next decade, of the saving life chances involved in that. Very often, we have spent a lot of time today talking about urgency sediation, but we are going to have to live with the after effects of this pandemic. We all know that the poor and those who have gone into this pandemic weaker are probably going to come out of a weaker, and colleges are very much at that sharp end. The challenges that we face in supporting social case are great, but as are the challenges of supporting economic renewal. I would like to suggest that I would be happy to contribute to your discussion on regionalisation when the committee looks at it, because some of the effects that we spoke about today are probably very pertinent to that. We would welcome that very much. Matthew Sweeney Thank you, convener. It was a point that I touched on, but just to expand briefly, around the fact that, while we are supportive of the continued direction powers, we are very, very keen that there is a mechanism put in place, which means that the views of local government are taken on board when those are crafted, because there are wide-ranging powers as they stand just now, and we would need assurances to make sure that those were deliverable and that we could meet them within the resources that we have. I think that one of the other things that we are keen to point out around the partnership has worked well in terms of the Covid-19 education recovery group, which we have co-chaired with the Scottish Government. In fact, we are disappointed that that has not been expanded into other areas. Perhaps also the Scottish Education Council, which is the position in the round, we are keen that that was there, and we are broadly consultation around the national care service and particularly the possible inclusion of children's services within that. It is a year that we continue to welcome further engagement rounds. I was going to point out that SAGE published some papers on 1 February looking at the likelihood of future variants. That paper suggests that the Omicron was unusually mild and that future ones are likely to be closer to variants such as the Delta that we have had before. However that is best achieved, we need to be able to respond quickly if a more severe variant has come along in the near future. The partnership working has worked brilliantly from our point of view, from the public health point of view. How that quick response is done is not a matter for myself, but just to make that point that we need to be able to respond quickly. That is across the whole spectrum of stepping up the surveillance, testing capacity, genomic sequencing, vaccine effectiveness work and mitigations as required guidance. It is just having that capability there in whatever way is best to achieve that. David Belsi, do you want to add anything? Yes, if I may. Again, we would like to say that partnership working has worked. We have been on the advanced learning service group and I think that the partnership working has led to an improved response and clearly is in the best interest of all stakeholders. I would urge the committee to look at the IAS's proposals around giving local authorities. Working with their public health professionals, committees and directors, the ability to close schools on public health grounds should the local conditions warrant it in their view. Lastly, I would like to make the point that staff representatives are not trade union representatives. A staff representative can be anybody the university chooses, but trade union representatives are elected democratically by their trade union branches. That is what I think is the point that I was trying to make earlier with regards to University Scotland's submission. Thank you and John Edward. Yes, just a couple of things. We haven't talked about another aspect to the bill which is vaccines and immunisations. I would stress the committee to look at the huge raft of vaccinations and immunisations that are asked of school age pupils now. If we are looking to future pandemics and the likelihood of future vaccines and now we are vaccinating primary school kids, we are trying to put some order to that huge programme that is in place now that is added in month, year on year, HPV for boys and whatever. On the stuff that we have been discussing this morning, I stress the point again for us that this is not just financial risk but existential risk if schools are asked to close. Therefore, they will jealously protect their ability to serve the pupils that are in those schools. Our working with the Government and with Public Health Scotland and NHS has been exemplary throughout this period. There is no criticism whatsoever in us in how this has gone and that is why we wouldn't necessarily seek to change it. I do make the point that we represent international pupils day and boarding from 50, 60 different countries and all of them have a slightly different, we have a different obligation to them in terms of their ability to travel, their ability to liaise with each other, their wellbeing. Just to stress that point, this is the first week in two years that we have been worrying more about their emotional wellbeing of our Ukrainian and Russian students than we have about the other borders. It is a big, big issue and all of this stuff, although it seems esoteric at one level, does affect very, very directly the lives of young people. Thank you and thanks to all of you. Thanks to Paul Little, Matthew Sweeney, David Bellsy, Diane Stockton, John Edward and Alasra Sim for joining us this morning. Your evidence has been very valuable to us. It will inform our next session, which will be with the cabinet secretary herself. At this point, I would like to thank you for your time and we will have a brief suspension of a few minutes to allow for a change of witnesses. Thank you and a good morning to you. We will now hear from our second panel of witnesses as we continue to take evidence on the coronavirus recovery and reform Scotland Bill at stage 1. I welcome Megan Farr, policy officer, children and young people's commission of Scotland, and Liam Fowley, vice-chair of the board of the Scottish Youth Parliament. You are both very welcome. Unfortunately, we are a bit short of time today, so we will be asking you to give us some quick answers. You have lots of questions and if you can keep your answers brief, that would be fantastic. Any outstanding matters that need to be followed up, we will ask for that to be done in writing. I would like to first turn to Megan. Megan, in your written evidence, to us, you say, and if I may quote, states' ability to interfere with human rights in a time of emergency are not unlimited. Any emergency powers must be lawful, necessary, proportionate and time limited. We therefore have considerable concerns about the proposals in this legislation which would place what were time-limited emergency measures permanently into statute for use by any future Government without prior reference to Parliament. Do you want to expand on what you gave us in writing? That is one of the major tests in international human rights law. As our response says, the European Convention on Human Rights article 15 and the international covenant on civil and political rights article 4 allow that human rights are interfered with when there is an emergency, but it does place quite a high test on that happening. We acknowledge that the Government has put in the tests of proportionality and necessity into their proposals, but we are still concerned that that has left up to Scottish ministers. I think that the parliamentary discretionary need that this Parliament and Westminster were able to put in place when the emergency legislation was passed that enabled organisations such as ourselves, members of civil societies and others to provide evidence and to provide some challenge. That level of scrutiny was very important at the beginning of the pandemic. This Parliament particularly did quite well in pivoting to working online, for example, and in virtual sittings. We were all much better at that than we were two years ago. I feel that that is important in giving a sense of public legitimacy in any future pandemic. The other thing is that, at the moment, the bill is largely putting in place what might have been useful to have in place at the beginning of the current pandemic, the next one may be different. The next emergency that Scotland faces may not be a pandemic, but it may be something else. I think that there is a risk of putting a lot of work into putting in place arrangements for the last emergency, rather than planning in advance for the next one. Your previous panel mentioned the planning that has done in local authorities around civil contingencies. That can certainly be drawn on, and there was a lot of planning done around future pandemics for that. From the Scottish Government point of view, it is absolutely legitimate for them to have this planning and to have draft legislation being reviewed and updated on a regular basis, ready to go, so to speak. Our concern is that, without the level of parliamentary scrutiny that the emergency legislation received last time around, there is a real risk that a future Government—not necessarily the current incumbents, but any future Government who would have these powers because they are not time limited—could bring quite significant interferences with children's human rights in particular, in respect of issues around youth justice and education, without that level of scrutiny to ensure that they are proportionate, necessary, time-limited and lawful. Can I ask you a second question? It may lead you to repeat something that you already said, but I think that it is useful to get this on the record. In your evidence, you call into question the lawfulness of the bill under the terms of article 15 of the ACHR. Why do you say that? It anticipates powers going into place permanently that are potentially emergency powers. I cannot say whether or not that would be up to the European Court to decide whether it was legitimate in terms of article 15, but it may be unlawful in terms of that. Some of the proposals in the current bill may also breach other rights. In particular, there are a couple of issues that link into article 8 rights in terms of private and family life. The two specific examples are around directing individuals to attend specified education establishments. Parents have a duty to educate their children, but they also have a right to choose how that happens. There is a risk there that could be open to challenge. The other one is about what is relatively obscure. That is about childminders who usually work in their own homes, and those are usually homes that also contain children and give the Government the power to legislate what happens in the homes of individual families that include children. That is just a couple of the examples, but the main thing to come back to is that that is why the parliamentary scrutiny at the time that emergency legislation is brought into force is important. I am aware that the Scottish Government has proposed that regulations should be laid under the affirmative procedure, but if you look at our evidence to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee on made affirmative, the effect of the made affirmative procedure, as it has been used over the last two years, is that measures are brought into force often very late, often without advance sight of them, and they are often published at the point of coming into force. Those interferences have already happened before that opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. Our comments are not a criticism of the current Government. It is one of the things with human rights law is that we need to legislate on the basis of any Government using these powers, and political situations in countries can change. I think that it is a risk having legislation sitting on the books that could be used at some future date by some future Government inappropriately when it interferes to the extent that this does with human rights. You basically hold out the prospect that this law, should it become law, would be open to challenge in the courts? I think that there is the possibility that it could be, either now or at a future date. The other issue around lawfulness is that I only caught some of the discussion last time as I was waiting outside, but it was also the talk about taking people to court. If, as happened in the recent pandemic, organisations failed to voluntarily, for example, close schools, it would not be any different from the situation if they ignored legislation that told them to close schools, both would result in having to take that establishment to court. It would be on a different basis. Liam, what are your concerns on the issue of human rights that are raised by the Commission? The technicalities of it are quite vast of the bill in general. I should caveat all that I will say that we have had very minimal opportunity to engage with young people, as we would like on the bill, because that sort of thing would take longer to do due to the technicalities. Those we have consulted have a broad range of concerns and a broad range of agreement as well. There is no clear thought process from young people in relation to the bill or the human rights aspects of it. The big thing that concerns young people and what comes through quite clearly on the constitution that we did is that, on the grounds of public health, those decisions will have to be made, but there also has to be provisions made for the alternative. If we look back to March 2020, digital exclusion was rife. The provision for young people with additional support needs was practically non-existent in their experiences, and, due to that, young people are almost scarred by it because they think that if they are going to shut schools again, they have to have something better in place. It did improve over time, but the whole bill should have a provision for young people to be given a proper quality education that is not going to be properly impacted if the schools close themselves. How do you specifically propose in that area then? I would not specifically propose anything because I have not consulted with young people on it, and I take pride in saying that we do that, but I think that there should be provision in the bill that, for example, young people have access to high-quality online learning, which was not in place in March 2020. Right.  Nodding. Yes, sorry, you are nodding vigorously. Not shaking nodding yet. I just want to echo what Liam Kerr says about the importance of involving children and young people. I mentioned earlier about the Government's planning for future emergencies, not just pandemic or anything. That is something that can happen, and it must happen with the involvement of children and young people when it comes to education provision. That is when the opportunity is there before we are putting it in place. However, that must happen as part of the process that Parliament plays as human rights guarantors in scrutinising legislation, is to look at whether the Scottish Government, when it was putting this planning process in place, when it was considering its draft legislation, was sitting hopefully ready to go in another pandemic. Did it consult with children and young people? Did children and young people participate in that decision making in a way that ensures that we do not repeat some of the issues that came up during the course of the last two years, where children and young people's views and their needs and rights were often overlooked? On connections in specific terms, can you talk a little about your concerns around school closures? It may be necessary to close schools again for public health measures, hypothetically for another reason. That is not something that we would oppose absolutely, but it needs to be acknowledged. We have a much bigger understanding now than we did two years ago as a society. The impact that closing schools have on the children and young people, on their families and on wider society, has profound workforce implications for places such as social care and health. That is why we think that a decision of that magnitude does need parliamentary scrutiny at the time to make sure that all those impacts on children and young people have been considered when that decision is made. It may need to be done on public health grounds very quickly, and that is why having the preparation ready. In terms of individual schools closing on public health grounds, my understanding is that that can happen. Usually on the recommendation of the director of public health is my understanding of how that usually happens. My understanding is that that power is in place to do that, but I am not an expert in how education authorities individually run. It may be that different local authorities have different practice in place around closure of schools. The closure of individual schools is something that happens occasionally and probably a handful of schools a year for different public health measures in non-pandemic times. Closing schools wholesale, though every school in the country closing, is a really significant interference with children's human rights, and it needs to be treated with the gravity that reflects that. Your conclusion is that the Scottish Minister should not have the power to do that unilaterally. I think that they should bring emergency legislation to Parliament to achieve that. Parliament has members of Parliament, but staff of Parliament have shown amazing innovation and resilience in the past two years, and I think that Parliament is up to that job. The only justifiable exception would be if Parliament were unable to consider emergency legislation in a timely manner. So there is something on the shelf that is pulled down and dusted off and utilised in the situation if it meets the need? That is a fairly basic part of emergency planning as it happens, is that Governments, local authorities, businesses and even the Office of the Children's Commissioner have plans ready for if something major happens that interferes with how they operate. With Government, it is at the level of do we have to close all the schools? But going forward, your position is that we should revert to the powers that existed before the pandemic. That is not my decision to make. Our position is that it is around the importance of Parliament to be rescruciallied when bringing powers into force. How Parliament legislates to achieve that is a matter for yourselves and obviously Government in terms of how they draft their bills. Ross Greer, on that last point, Megan, on the potential for Government to bring forward emergency legislation if existing legislation is not sufficient, does that not take us back to part of the discussion that we just had with the last panel at year on the importance of parliamentary scrutiny but wider public scrutiny of legislation? We all accept that while I think those of us who were there at the time were quite proud of the process that we under took with last year's two bills. Emergency legislation vastly limits the opportunity for both parliamentary and public scrutiny. Indeed, both of your organisations had very limited opportunity to contribute to those pieces of legislation. Is this not a better process doing this now through the use of legislation that is not emergency and is not time limited where we can thoroughly scrutinise, both as parliamentarians but organisations like yourselves, can thoroughly scrutinise and amend if necessary that legislation? Is this not a preferable approach to an emergency one? I think that there are two middle grounds. One is, as I have discussed, having legislation ready to go. The other way would be to amend this bill in a way that ensured that that test of being proportionate and necessary was definitely going to be in place before a measure came into force. Theorising here, potentially there is a work around where there was parliamentary scrutiny of particular bits being brought into force in an emergency situation. The fix to that ability for public involvement, particularly in children and young people's involvement, is that that planning is much more transparent, is not done in a corner without knowing. People know that when an emergency happens, we have more knowledge of that experience of that in society than we have ever had in most of our lives. All of our lifetimes, nothing like this has happened since the Second World War in terms of the interferences in individuals' human rights. If that planning is done in a transparent way, those opportunities to be part of that discussion can happen before the legislation is brought to Parliament. Parliament, as human rights guarantors, can ask the questions of did that happen, can ask to see the children's rights impact assessments, the equality impact assessments, the human rights impact assessments, did that actually happen? That will help you to do your job if Scottish Government has done that work in advance. We are not convinced that it is impossible to bring that in as emergency legislation, and it also allows it to be fine-tuned to take account of the specific circumstances of the next emergency. One of the points that we made quite rightly is that when legislating in areas such as human rights on a permanent basis, we need to think not just of who the current Government is, the current composition apartment, but that anyone can be impaired in the future, but does that not equally apply to the other organisations that we are talking about? Again, we just discussed in the last panel that there was very good partnership working with universities, colleges, student accommodation providers, et cetera, last time round. We cannot guarantee that next time round. What we can guarantee is that Governments will always be held accountable by Parliament and ultimately by the public, whereas it is much harder to hold a private provider student accommodation to account, particularly in an emergency situation. If it is about a balance of where that power lies, even when we do not know who the individuals are going to be and what their motivations might be, is it not better having that power with a democratically accountable Government rather than a private accommodation provider? First of all, student accommodation is another one that is not always recognised as being someone's home.  For older students, for young people who have care experience, that is their permanent home. First of all, what you are suggesting as legislation that interferes with people's lives in their home, and that needs to be considered with quite a lot of care and in the context in which it is being brought into force. If they are going to co-operation or not, it does not depend on whether the legislation is passed in an emergency ground as a situation evolves or if it is passed in 2022 and has sat on the books for 10 or more years. We do not know when this is next going to be needed. I am inclined to think that that legislation that has been brought through in the context of a specific evolving emergency is probably more likely to meet the needs of children and young people. Thank you, convener. Just for absolute clarity, do you feel there is a lack of proportionality that could make this legislation unlawful? No. I feel that it is the lack of a test for proportionality and necessity and the issue is untimely limited because those powers are untimely limited. They can be brought in but the legislation is on the book permanently. It is not that the bill itself is not proportionate, it is that the ability to bring in the powers on the judgment of Scottish ministers does not have democratic scrutiny of the decision of whether it is necessary and proportionate, and the potential that made affirmative procedure is used means that it can be built in power with that parliamentary scrutiny happening retrospectively. Is it a sliding scale? Passing new emergency legislation requires the full parliamentary process. If you just had to bring it into force provision, does that not create a lower bar? I just wonder whether there would be a question whether that is proportionate for the scale of measures that this enables. We are talking about your pretty fundamental rights being removed in terms of education. Do you think that it is bringing it into force enough? It is legitimate, in terms of ECHR article 15, to have those rights and use them in an emergency context, as we did. Do you think that bringing it into force provision would meet that test? That would be a decision to be challenged in the court for the court. As far as I know, there is relatively limited case law on it. I am not an expert in ECHR case law. I can ask the colleague who is and get back to you on that. I would be interested, because there is a different type of consultation, a different type of consent that you are relying on as a member of Parliament in bringing something into force. You are putting the legislation on to the statute book and having it sit there. I would be interested in that and anything more that you could provide. The test is proportionate, legitimate, necessary and, importantly, time limited. With the current emergency legislation, it has been brought back to Parliament for review on a regular basis. That would be the conditions that whatever was put in place, whether that be a bill that was brought into force or a new piece of legislation that the Government had—what we are effectively talking about is having something on the books or in a draw. Either way, what is important is— One has a lower hurdle to pass. I think that that would be the point that I would make. One has a lower— No, they must—both bringing into force existing legislation and creating new legislation from a human rights point of view needs to pass those four tests—necessary, proportionate, time limited—as a lower parliamentary hurdle. One has a lower parliamentary hurdle in terms of the scrutiny and the process that it has to follow. That would be the decision for a Parliament and how I would approach the two things. In terms of made affirmative, we have made our views known in the Delegated Palsum and Law Reform Committee around some of the issues that arose with the use of made affirmative and very later, in the retrospective scrutiny of that legislation. On the case for using that process, your view would diminish over time and you would be less proportionate if you are planning in advance or in emergency. That is a fair comment. I am very aware that pandemics and other emergencies can change course very quickly. We saw that with Omicron, so I would not like to give a categorical answer about the use of that procedure in specific instances. I think that we said that in our response that I think it predated Omicron and that things can move quickly and it may be necessary. However, it is a weakness of that measure that there is not the same amount of scrutiny and that would be our concern about this bill being brought into force—the measures in this bill being brought into force on that basis. I am very aware that Liam is not getting a chance to speak. Liam, do you want to add anything? It was just very technical. I am not an expert in the technical aspect of it. What I can tell you very concretely is that young people—both processes that were outlined there—young people regularly feel like they are an afterthought in both of those processes. If we go back to March, it is a scary time, but what came through very clear at that point is that young people felt like they were being ignored and they did not have the opportunity to get their voices heard. I sat on the Covid Education Recovery Group and the Scottish Education Council, not representing them today, but we were invited on to those groups after a lot of advocacy and, quite later on, in 2020. That was fantastic. We were getting a seat at that table and it was really important that we were getting young people around that table and getting engaged in that way. However, at that time, when things were happening very rapidly and young people agreed that they had to happen very rapidly, they still felt like they were just shift to the side. Unfortunately, it is a very difficult reality that young people come through. On the actual legislation itself, as I have said, limited concentration of young people, there was overwhelming majority agreed that the Government should have those powers, especially on the public health basis. However, there are some who are more skeptical about that level of power and about what is class as the extreme circumstance and how clear that is. There were a couple of young people who came through and it is only fair to represent them and say that the balance was off in terms of risk and freedom.  I know that it is very blunt and harsh, but it is true. I think that that rings true that the mental health aspect of our school closure is absolutely immeasurable. The impact that it has had has been vast, and you will regularly hear young people say that there is a concurrent pandemic here, and that is the mental health pandemic. That is well said. I think that you have provided a very pragmatic response to it, and I think that you have set out potentially a way ahead with dealing with it, that deals with the concerns that some of my colleagues Fergus Ewing expressed earlier on about the need to respond quickly on an emergency while making sure that we do not have permanent emergency powers that are disproportionate. We had two elements to that. There is the length of time that the powers are in place, and then there is the content. We heard from an earlier session about effective way leaders of various higher education institutions think that this is micromanaging far too much and that there should be broad principles and that they should be allowed to get on with implementing. There is a debate about whether that is right or not, and then there is the debate about the length of time. I would quite like you to comment on the content aspect, if that is okay. Are you really just saying that we should use the time now to debate the content and then have the legislation ready to roll if the events were to happen again? Is that what you are really saying? Perhaps rather than legislating now, we should debate now and get it ready. Is that what you are recommending as a process? It is not for me to dictate what you do or what Scottish Government does. I think that, for some of the content in this, there probably is too much detail, and there is that risk that it is responding to the last emergency, not the next emergency. That is something that is often a pitfall of emergency planning and could put us in the position that we were in two years ago, rather than perhaps not being as prepared as we should have been for this to happen. We have certainly been talking about a pandemic of the extent of this one, in the emergency planning circles. We are definitely talking about that sort of thing before the H1N1 pandemic, which is now 13, 14 years ago. There is a risk that, if we concentrate too hard on the last emergency, we do not take into account what other things could happen. We are very lucky in Scotland, because we are a country that does not have volcanoes and earthquakes and tornadoes and other big emergencies. However, there are other things that could happen that could have a serious impact on society. My mind is currently blank as to examples. It needs to be carefully thought about how the best thing to do at this point in the pandemic, and there potentially is a place for emergency powers to continue. However, whether that is the point at which to be sitting down in the legislation, that will be available for use unless repealed to any future Government, of any political flavour of any attitude, possibly after all of us have long retired, except perhaps Liam. Sorry, he should not single out the young person. Really long-lasting and potentially significant legislation on human rights terms at this point, or whether we are still in a stage where we should be reviewing what has happened and how things could have been done better. We are still not in a point where children and young people are being listened to enough, and we are still not in a point where all of the rights issues that arose during the pandemic for children and young people actually were addressed. You have heard, and this was not planned. I did not know when I wrote my submission evidence to you that this was happening today, but the Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons today has issued a call around the 16 and 17-year-olds who are in prison in Scotland. An average of 18 children have been in prison in Scotland during the course of this academic, so 18 children each week on average. There are currently 14 of whom 10 have not been tried. Three have been convicted and sentenced, and one is waiting sentencing. That number has moved from being 41 per cent in the first three months of the pandemic were untried to 78 per cent in the last three months of the pandemic are untried. Some of those children during points in the pandemic are not just in the early stages, but where there has been outbreaks and a reaction to Omicon having been confined to themselves for up to 23 hours a day, having received no education, no time for recreation, no time for support and counselling. Those are not children who have committed serious crimes in many cases. We have heard of one instance of a child who was sent to polemont for failing to appear as a witness in a court case recently. We wrote to the cabinet secretary about that just a couple of weeks ago and there is a link to that in our evidence. We have also heard of potential trafficking victims being remanded to polemont, despite the fact that we have a non-prosecution presumption around victims of trafficking, let alone child victims of trafficking in Scotland. The bill also addresses the early release measures. Not a single child has benefited from the early release measures in the last two years since they have been in place. None of the children who are on remand, at the moment, is roughly 80 per cent, can. One of the things that we would like to see the bill do, which would actually be a progressive human rights response to the pandemic for children and young people, is to alter that legislation or update that legislation to ensure that children who are in prison but are untried can be moved to settings that are more appropriate, that may be secure in some cases, in secure care, but secure care, they have been able to continue with education, that is those children's homes, so they weren't subject to the same restrictions. Children's secure care were able to continue to receive education, support the kind of therapy they need to rehabilitate themselves. They are supported to rehabilitate themselves and that is how we should be approaching children or in conflict with the law. I am aware that I have gone a little off-topic, but it is merely serendipity that the inspectors' views have come out today, but that is a really important issue that was overlooked. I think that it got about a minute and a half's attention at the criminal justice committee last week, and that is one of the reasons I have jumped in. I am really grateful as a Liberal that you have raised that issue. What has been the response from Government to that proposal? It has been mixed. I believe that there was a letter in last week, last night, which I haven't had a chance to look at. Unfortunately, I couldn't get into my system when I came into Parliament this morning, but they are talking mostly about long-term strategies about getting 16 and 17-year-olds out of the adult justice services, so out of prisons, and that includes young and fed as institutions. Pullment is a prison. It is not a secure care setting. It is not based on care and rehabilitation in the way that secure is. There are mostly two long-term aims. In terms of this committee's remit, there is a big issue around 16 and 17-year-olds in the children's hearing system, which is a barrier to ensuring that children in conflict with the law are dealt with as children. Not all 16 and 17-year-olds can be referred to the children's hearing system, and that falls with the new remit that I noticed on the website. They are talking about those long-term plans around reform of children's hearings, rather than addressing the short-term issue of those really vulnerable children that many of them have not committed serious crimes, because serious crimes often get them to secure. We have also heard instances where a child has ended up in Pullment due to a lack of places in secure care being available. We think that this needs a really urgent issue, because the reason the proportion of children who are untried in prison has increased is partly because of the delays in the court system. That is why the proportion has doubled. While the numbers remain low, the proportion who are untried has doubled during the course of the pandemic. I think that this merits quite a lot of further discussion, but I probably would try the committee's patience if we go too far down this route. Thank you for indulging me. No, perhaps the committee will look at whether we want to return to this issue another time. I ask one final question to both of you. It was suggested earlier on that we should logically be waiting for the public inquiry to happen, consider, debate and conclude before we consider what further legislation is required for future emergency situations. Is that something that you would think is would be a wise thing to do? Perhaps we start off with Leo. On the specifics of it, it will not give a definitive answer, but I think that in both this and that inquiry, the children and young people have been meaningfully participated regularly throughout it. One can make the argument that they should be front and centre of it, but in order to ultimately, I think that this bill has to have further engagement with children and young people so that it can be made because young people were hit hard during the pandemic. We all were, but of course young people were as well. The inquiry itself, whether it should be concluded by the time this legislation comes into play, is very specific in each question, but I just think that in the inquiry more further proper meaningful participation, not one person, one young person stuck in the room at the end of the table participation. They are two very different types. Sorry, I just realised that that's what's happening here. That's not what I'm referring to. My hands up! Proper meaningful participation both with the inquiry and this bill is required to be taken forward. I absolutely agree with Liam in terms of the importance of meaningful, active participation and participation that actually changes things. If the participation of children and young people doesn't change what happens, you may as well not do it. We've had examples of that during the course of the pandemic where children and young people, or a child or young person, and often Liam or one of the other SIPs has been at tables and it is very difficult to see what impact they actually had. That's why this model is a model but it cannot be the only model. In terms of things like a public inquiry that are judge-led, that are often based on a very formal approach to taking evidence, to gathering views. There is a real risk that we privilege people who are already privileged in society and goes beyond children and young people, but children and young people are the ones I'm here to speak about. There's been a lot of good work recently in terms of improving the quality of how inquiries are conducted in terms of including a wider range of people. Conversely, you often hear in the chamber those views will be heard, or people talking about hearing views. Participation isn't about hearing views, it's about being part of decision making and making a difference. Hearing views is one thing, but if you say you're going to hear the views, that also leaves you open to being able to ignore views. It has to be active participation that really looks at a broad range of children and young people's experiences. I have to say that one of the most disturbing things that I've read in any of the evidence that we've ever received as a committee is that sentence from the Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland that says in Scotland that conditions for children in prison were in breach not only of UNCRC but also the prohibition on torture inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment in terms of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It's quite an extraordinary thing to read in this day and age in our country. I thank you for taking us down that avenue of the evidence that you provided in a call Michael Marra. It's a slight reflection on some of that. I don't believe that it was tangential at all. It's absolutely critical to our understanding of some of the unintended consequences of legislation, whether it be emergency or properly scrutinised legislation that takes place. I think that it would be remiss, convener, for this committee not to make urgent representations to the Justice Minister given the evidence that we've heard today about what action that increase of 40 per cent to 80 per cent in rough terms of the number of people sitting without trial or recourse to justice in prison is totally unacceptable and something that has to be done about it immediately. I suppose that my question relates to and I'm very welcome of the focus on rights and rights to education. You may have heard in the previous panel some discussion about the risks in the short term or further mutations and strains of the virus that may result in other form closure. I want to get your reflections on what some of the consequences of that might be. There was some discussion about digital access. We know that that is far from widespread at the moment and there are still challenges in that regard. I wonder if Liam could reflect on that. Yes, so there's a lot, but I'll highlight just a few. That digital access one is really important and it came through loud and clear right from the start that people were to learn online. The virtual learning environment wasn't a very positive one at that particular time, but young people could access it. It wasn't just as simple as no Wi-Fi couldn't afford a device, but mum works from home and has to work all day on the computer, the one computer that's in the household. We heard stories of young people that were up till 3, 4 in the morning doing their work for school because they couldn't do it during the day. On the flipside of that, there's rarely positivity, but I'll put it in there, that some young people found that online learning suited them more. For example, young care experienced people would have to not attend school because they had caring responsibilities at home. They could engage in their learning throughout the pandemic because they had access to it virtually in a better environment. That's one element that's got two sides to it, but that relies on a robust system that's an online learning platform or an online learning offer that's been code-designed with young people. Young people are part of that process, especially young people who are going to be using it. Mental health is the other huge one. Education of settings are not just schools, they are places for young people to go and it dramatically helps their mental health when they go. When schools are closed, although hubs were provided, they weren't up to standard. Young people still felt that they couldn't access them and they couldn't access support when they needed it most, not just in the wider sphere of mental health, but the simple support of the Chancellor's guidance teacher in the corridor. That cut off overnight for an extended period of time and young people didn't have the informal chats with their pals and things like that, which sound very dramatic, but it's true that young people are probably never going to go over that, that they missed that during school. It came through time and time again, which is really important. I think also that they are actually a security bone forever or so. I'll come to you in a moment, Megan. If that's okay, the Scottish Government's policy existing at the moment is that every child should have access to a digital device and the connectivity that provides that. However, that's not to be provided to believe until the end of this Parliament in its totality. Do you believe that there's a real risk in terms of the lack of provision at the moment if we find another mutation in further school closures? Categorically, yes. I agree on that point, but I am nonetheless aware of the issues facing schools and local authority staff enrolling out devices. It's not a simple matter of handing a child a device, and there were some issues during the pandemic where that happened with no support. I'm also aware that there is a global shortage of computer chips because everyone suddenly discovered we all need devices. Liam made an important point, which will probably still exist, around broadband connections. We probably have all experienced a thing where we've had to ask someone else in the household to get off a connection, even though we thought we had good connections during the course of the pandemic, and it turned out that you couldn't have three online meetings at the same time. That's always going to be a problem. The experience of children and young people from what we've heard and our young advisers group came into discussion with the committee last year is that the experience has been enormously variable with online learning. That has varied literally from class to class for some young people that have had excellent online teaching from one teacher and almost nothing from another teacher within the same school, so it's not an issue around specific schools, specific areas or specific local authorities. It's partly because teachers are human beings who had things happening in their lives during the pandemic as well. I think that young people are aware that everyone was going through this and no one was unaffected. Liam has touched on how, for some children and young people, online learning was better than school. There should never be a group of children for whom online learning is better than school because school should be appropriate for all children and young people. That's a group that was published by Children in Scotland, the National Autistic Society and Scottish Autism a few years ago. Mr Mundell was at the launch of it with me, and it was a good few years ago now, which is not involved, not engaged, not included. The website is notengaged.com. That's a fairly substantial number of children and young people who are absent for school for other than routine childhood illness. They haven't got chicken pox, flu, the cold or Covid, but they're absent for mental health problems, for anxiety or because their parents feel that their needs aren't being met and they're not safe at school. Many of those children have autistic spectrum disorders or other similar conditions. We did hear directly from families, from children and young people, and also through organisations that support them like Selvis and Mindroom, that some of those children were suddenly experiencing the first education that they'd had from their schools in years. Some of them had been receiving nothing. Some had been receiving as little from the local authority as one hour a day. Suddenly, because things were being provided online through the school, the local authority and things like eSchool, suddenly there was all this education available, and we must not lose that. Even if we were to address some of the issues that prevent that group of children and young people from not attending school, there are still children who can't attend schools for shorter long periods, and we've done an amazing amount to build our capacity to support them and we can't lose that. Should the legislation that we're looking at at the moment have a guarantee in it when we talk about school closures and otherwise a guarantee about educational access for young people? In principle, yes. I think that there needs to be more involvement with the children and young people and also with providers of education on what would be achievable, because I wouldn't like to see a promise that can't be kept, because that's worse than saying nothing. There are far too many of those children and young people. Thank you for your time. I apologise, colleagues, that you may have still wanted to continue this conversation. It's been very interesting, and thank you both, Megan Farre and Liam Fowley, for your evidence and for your time this morning. We now bring our public part of our committee meeting to an end. I will now suspend the meeting and can I ask members to reconvene on Microsoft Teams, which will allow us to consider our final agenda items in private. Thank you again and have a good morning.