 Good morning and welcome to the 16th meeting of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee in 2022. The first and only agenda item on our agenda is consideration of the coronavirus recovery and reform Scotland-build at stage two. I'd like to welcome trying to put in the stillser and are unable to speak in the debates on the heiwi ar the amendment. Members should therefore direct their comments or questions for the Scottish government to the Deputy First Minister. Members should be aware that some officials, who are supporting the Deputy First Minister, is seated in the public gallery, and will be swapping places with those halted at the table as required. The Parliament has agreed that consideration of this bill will be split at stage two, between the committee and the criminal justice committee, The detail of how the bill has been split at stage 2 is set out on motion S6M-04477. To summarise, the criminal justice committee met yesterday to consider the justice-related provisions in part 3, part 5 and the schedule of the bill. Today this committee will consider the remaining provisions of the bill, including in parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, as well as the long title. If there is a good opportunity to take a short comfort break between groupings once we've made progress with the bill, I will allow this and briefly suspend the meeting. Overall I will allow this meeting to run until approximately 11.30, if we have not concluded stage 2 by this time, I will suspend the meeting and we will reconvene in this room at 5.30pm this evening. Decision time is currently scheduled to be at 5pm, so this should allow time for members to get back to the room. Before we begin, I will also briefly explain the procedure that we will be following this morning for everyone who is watching. The amendments have been lodged on the bill have been grouped together. There will be one debate on each group of the amendments. I will call the member who lodged the First Amendment in that group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all other amendments in the group. I will then call any other members who have lodged amendments in that group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should try and catch my attention. If he has not already spoken to the group, I will then invite the Deputy First Minister to contribute to the debate. The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the First Amendment in the group to wind up. Following debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the First Amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the agreement of the other members to do so. If any member present objects, the committee immediately moves to a vote on the amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when called, they should say not moved, please note that any other member present may move such an amendment. If no member moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in any division is shown by hands. It is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed each section of the bill, so I will put a question in each section at the appropriate point. Now that we have covered the housekeeping matters, we can start the substantive business, but before we start, Oliver Mundell, I know that you have not joined a committee before, but if I could just ask you to declare anything that is recorded on your register of interests, it might be relevant to this committee. I have no relevant interests to declare. We are starting with group 1, which is public health protection regulations, use of powers and safeguards. I call amendment 4, in the name of Brian Whittle, a group with amendments as shown in the groupings. I remind members that, if amendment 10 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 25 and 26 due to a pre-emption. Brian Whittle, can I ask Brian Whittle to move the amendment 4 and to speak to all amendments in the group? I have a couple of amendments in this group. The first one is quite a simple one. When determining what is significant and the harm, as it says in stage 1 of the bill, I would like to understand who it is that decides what constitutes significant harm. It is really important that, for all MSPs and for the general public, we understand that that is a medical decision. It seems logical to me that the role in determining what presents a significant harm to public health should be made by the chief medical officer. All I am asking for is that that is inserted into the bill and that the chief medical officer's role is to determine what presents a significant harm to public health. The other amendment is about when we first brought in the coronavirus emergency bill, we were unable to determine what the unintended consequences of that were on other health issues that would happen. We are starting to understand a little bit better the other health issues that have happened because of lockdown, because of our need to focus on the coronavirus. Cancer screening is often one of the ones that is discussed. We discuss elective surgery, etc. What I am looking for in this amendment is that, in taking those decisions, hopefully you will never have to take, there is a balance with the decision on the impact of long-term health risks, as we now have a baseline to understand. There is a balance in taking long-term health risks and taking action against what would be an immediate health threat. I think that looking at the health impact in the round rather than specifically at that health risk at that time, I am just asking the Scottish ministers to take that into consideration when they are taking their decisions. I ask the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 23 and other amendments in the group. Good morning, convener. There is an extensive amount of material in this grouping, so I have quite a lot to say on this particular grouping. I will try to minimise it at later stages in the bill. The overarching amendment in this group is amendment 23, alongside amendments 38 and 39 in group 2. It strengthens parliamentary safeguards in the bill by introducing the gateway vote mechanism announced at the stage 1 debate. I repeat the key points that I set out then. There is a clear and compelling argument for ministers to have public health protection powers in this bill. Action by ministers must be grounded in evidence and Parliament must be involved in decision making more effectively than was originally proposed in the bill. Amendment 23 proposes adding sections 86AA and 86AB to the Public Health Scotland Act 2008, meaning that key aspects of the public health protection power could have effect, only after a parliamentary vote on and approval of, a formal Government declaration. To ensure Government action is grounded in evidence, such a declaration will be informed by the advice of the chief medical officer or another designated person. The key aspects of this power could only be exercised whilst the approved declaration remained in place. Conversely, once ministers have revoked the declaration, those same aspects could not be used without a further declaration. A public health declaration coming into force does not require the Scottish ministers to make regulations. It simply opens up the potential for ministers to do so if the other tests for making regulations within the bill are met. As I signalled in the stage 1 debate, provision is made for circumstances in which Parliament cannot meet to approve a declaration, for example when it has been dissolved in the pre-election period. For clarity, weekends, public holidays and periods of recess would not ordinarily fall into that category. It would usually be practicable in those circumstances to seek recall of the Parliament in sufficient time for the necessary public health response to be put in place. Finally, as I also signalled at the stage 1 debate, the amendment excludes standing preparedness measures that would be intended to strengthen the public health resilience framework. They would be subject to parliamentary safeguards and could not objectively be described as emergency measures. In agreed amendment 23, the committee would preserve the ability for swift and effective action to respond to a public health threat balance with proper parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament can enact the bill's public health protection powers with the confidence that lockdown and other emergency response measures could only be imposed in the event of a future public health threat if the Parliament has approved a declaration. In speaking to amendments 25 to 27, I am mindful of the significant concerns regarding the ability for regulations made under the power in section 86A1 to amend primary legislation, the so-called Henry VIII power, and the recommendations made by committee at stage 1. Amendments 25 to 27 are designed to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny further. If accepted any regulations made under section 86A1, which modify primary legislation, can only be made using the draft affirmative procedure. That means that primary legislation could not be amended by section 86A regulations made using the made affirmative procedure and that Parliament would always have the fullest opportunity for scrutiny. I hope that this reassures members that the Government has acted on the concerns over the scope of the power and that Parliament's role in scrutinising regulations amending primary legislation has been secured. I acknowledge that some wish us to go further. Alec Rowley's amendment 1 would remove the ability to amend enactments entirely. I believe that it is necessary to include the provisions that I have set out in the restricted form amendments 26 and 27 would deliver. First, I reiterate that this power is intended only to be used where existing legislation without modification would either cause confusion, for example where provisions in public health regulations conflicted with other primary legislation, or lessen the effectiveness of a public health response. Secondly, the public health provisions in this bill are rightly informed by our experiences of the pandemic, which demonstrated that measures are not always foreseeable and that speed can be vital. As an example, the 2008 Public Health Act requires health boards to pay compensation to individuals asked to isolate. Earlier this year, expedited primary legislation was required to ensure that boards were not overwhelmed by this duty where isolation related to coronavirus. Using primary legislation was practical this time but may not always be. So, while I hope that this power will never be used or needed, it is prudent to ensure that it is available if necessary. Thirdly, as I outlined to committee in April, the provision at section 86 F2D is part of the wider power at section 86A, which contains important safeguards and thresholds. Those have been extensively documented, but in particular the power could only be used as part of a response to a public health threat that could present significant harm to human health. Amendments 25 to 27 will also add the safeguard of parliamentary scrutiny before any changes to primary legislation can take effect. My final point in this area is that this power, while significant, is not without precedent. The lessons of the pandemic have convinced us of the need to be able to amend other legislation, even though equivalent provision is not part of the English and Welsh model. I hope that the committee will acknowledge that the experience of the pandemic has led us to diverge from England and Wales in other areas and, therefore, the case is made in this respect. In a later group, I will speak to amendment 67, which relates to commencement. However, for the present, I will set out why I do not support amendments 8 and 9. In general, my reasons for any delay to public health provisions are that the Covid pandemic clearly highlighted a gap in our legislative framework to respond to significant public health threats. We had to rely on emergency UK legislation to provide Scottish ministers with powers to control the virus's spread. It would be ill-advised to delay closing a gap that we have already identified. Recent experiences of unusual presentations of hepatitis in children and the monkeypox outbreak are irrefutable evidence that public health threats can emerge with very little warning. The Government would be rightly criticised where another threat to emerge and we had to once again resort to emergency legislation. Moreover, those powers simply align us with England and Wales who have had those powers for over a decade. On the specific content of amendment 8, there has already been a 12-week consultation on this bill, in addition to the usual evidence gathering by committees. Appropriate impact assessments were also carried out in line with the standard parliamentary process. That is indeed one of the strengths of including the powers on a permanent basis, rather than relying on emergency legislation for future threats. Secondly, section 1 provides a general power to make regulations. It does not impose any restrictions or requirements. Consultation would therefore yield very little on the impact of the power that has not been raised in the already extensive consultation period. Thirdly, the group set out for consultation mirror groups significantly affected by Covid restrictions. Those may not be the group's most impacted by future responses, as the Government has stressed from the outset that one public health threat may be very different to another, and so too might the measures needed to respond. For those reasons, consultation should be determined by the content of regulations as and when they are laid. Section 122 of the Public Health Act 2008 already specifies that consultation should be carried out with affected persons who are practicable. That requirement would apply to any regulations that are made under section 86A. On amendment 9, I would add that there are lessons to be learned from the Covid response, and the inquiry is an important part of that process. Following its conclusion, there may be recommendations for other legislative changes, but, as I have noted, we have already identified a clear gap, and we should move quickly to address it. Additionally, amendment 9 would go considerably further by delaying commencement of all the public health measures in the bill. While I recognise that section 1 has been a source of concern, other matters in part 1, such as monitoring provisions, provisions to ensure the regime governing potential travelling restrictions, is consistent, and provisions to expand the range of individuals who can deliver vaccines have either been well received or are uncontroversial. On amendment 4, I understand Mr Whittle's perspective before placing restrictions and requirements on people and business gathering supporting evidence is crucial. However, there are very good reasons that we have not explicitly required CMO advice on the face of the bill in relation to the making of regulations under the public health protection powers. First, the chief medical officer may not always be the person best placed to make a determination as to the threat, and in exceptional circumstances may be unavailable to make such a determination. In the event of a chemical agent act, for example, the most appropriate person could well be the chief scientific adviser. That amendment does not allow for substitutions. On more substantive grounds, it is precisely because of the potentially significant impacts of public health regulations that ministers should take decisions to lay them, of course with advice from relevant authorities, and nothing should detract from that ultimate responsibility. I will better give way to Mr Whittle first. I appreciate taking the intervention. The point here, cabinet secretary, is that somebody has to gather and assess the information, especially around health, and it should not be ministers that gather and assess that. You would rely on your CMO specifically for that, to gather that information, and ultimately, when assessing a threat like that from a multitude of potential inputs, surely it should be your CMO that advises you on the gathered evidence? I would expect the CMO to be involved intimately in that process, but it won't, as I have just recounted, necessarily always be the CMO that is best placed to do that. Evidence is gathered for ministers from a multitude of different sources, and ministers ultimately make the judgments on that advice that is put forward, because ministers are accountable, CMOs are not accountable for those decisions. Those decisions are properly for ministers to take, and ministers independently must assess the evidence that is put in front of them and come to a judgment. I will give way to Mr Simpson. I just want to listen to what you have said about Mr Whittle's amendment, whether there is room to work with Mr Whittle to improve the amendment for stage 3. Given your comments that you feel that it is too restrictive at the moment, maybe it can be improved? I am certainly willing to consider issues that arise in the light of—there will be a number of points that I am sure colleagues will make in the course of this morning and perhaps this evening—where there will be points advanced, and I am very happy to reflect on those points and to have further discussions. Indeed, I will offer on certain amendments that very point, but I am very happy to do that. Secondly, in relation to this point, convener, there will be times when decisions on whether to impose restrictions or requirements are made locally. For the reasons that are set out already, those decisions should be made by those who know communities best. It would be disproportionate to suggest that, for example, an environmental health officer must always consult the chief medical officer before making a decision. Thirdly, it is important to highlight how many safeguards are included in the public health protection provisions, and the expert advice will be sought under each. By way of examples, Scottish ministers are required to carry out a proportionality assessment when making regulations under section 86A. Clinical advice would necessarily inform that assessment. Additionally, regulations can only be made in response to a threat that presents or could present a significant risk, and regulations that enable the imposition of a special restriction or requirement can only be made where the threat is serious and imminent. Assessment of threat levels could only be carried out with advice on the CMO or other qualified advisers. Finally, in this respect, the Public Health Declaration amendment, if accepted, would require Scottish ministers to consult the chief medical officer or equivalent before proposing to make a public health declaration. That, I hope, provides further assurances that appropriate advice and evidence will inform Government action. I cannot therefore support this amendment and believe that it would impact the speed at which we could respond to a public health threat in an emergency situation, resulting in a disproportionate demand on the chief medical officer's time and expertise, and, in reality, reduce accountability for decisions that can have profound consequences. I am grateful to Mr Whittle for his consideration of the matters raised in amendment 5. I am willing to listen to arguments and put forward in favour of it. However, at present, I am not convinced of its value. My chief reason for that is that it is noticed that all regulations must meet a proportionality test. In assessing that, the long-term health impacts—where relevant—would, of course, inform thinking. However, that may just be one of the many factors, and to mention only one in the face of the bill may prejudice deliberations in its favour. Additionally, the amendment does not distinguish between the regulations to which it would apply, and thus it would apply to any made under section 86A1, regardless of their purpose. Concern around the long-term impacts on public health as a result of Covid control measures are well documented. However, Covid should not be the template for consideration of all public health threats. Others may take different forms and require wholly different measures, and thus a blanket requirement to consider long-term health impacts may not be appropriate. It would also be impossible to measure the long-term health impacts of preparedness regulations, which would not impose restrictions directly and which might only impose obligations on Scottish ministers or other bodies. A statement would therefore add nothing meaningful to scrutiny. For all those reasons, I currently do not support this amendment, but as I said, I am open to arguments made in its favour and will consider it further. Amendment 24 is, I hope, uncontroversial. It would exempt regulations made on a general or contingent basis. That is regulations empowering potential action if a significant public health threat emerged but which do not impose any new restrictions or requirements. From the on-going three-weekly review process set out in section 86G. This amendment, of course, has no impact on regulations that are made in response to a significant public health threat and which, if the Government's amendment on a public health declaration is passed, could not be laid without such a declaration. The reason for the amendment is that it would be undually onerous and unreasonable use of public resources to subject regulations intended to sit on the statute book on an on-going basis and which do not impose any new restrictions or requirements every three weeks. I have considered issues raised during stage 1 by the committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. Amendment 28 provides for an explanation of urgency if the made affirmative procedure needs to be used in urgent circumstances to make public health regulations. The bill already provides for the draft affirmative procedure to be the norm and the made affirmative procedure may only be used for reasons of urgency. Members are aware that the parliamentary authorities are working with Government officials on a protocol for an expedited draft affirmative procedure in appropriate cases. Amendment 28 also provides for an expiry or sunset provision to be included in public health regulations where the made affirmative procedure is used unless the regulations amend regulations that already include unexpiried provisions. The alternative amendments 6, 10, 11 and 12 lodged by Mr Fraser and Mr Simpson in relation to made affirmative regulations would either mean that the made affirmative procedure was not available or would lead to delay. I consider that the Government amendment 28 fully addresses points made by scrutiny committees at stage 1 and it should be preferred. Amendment 7 would remove the public health regulation making power entirely. I have already documented why the public health measures are so important and the recent pandemic speaks very clearly on this point than I could. I will therefore not dwell on arguments against the amendment. I will simply say that I think that the amendments that the Government has brought forward add significant safeguards to those already included when the bill was introduced. I hope that this reassures members that their voices have been heard and that the bill is better as a result. For the reasons that I have given, I invite the committee to support my amendments in this group and would ask other members not to press theirs. Can we move to Alex Rowley's place to speak to amendment number one and any other amendments in the group? This is the only amendment that I have brought forward in this bill. I think that the bill, as we have heard many say at evidence sessions, is very wide ranging. There is an argument to be made that we should be able to focus better. There are umpteen bits of legislation that could have been brought forward, for example the housing legislation, which we very much support. There is a question about this bill, but in general terms my one amendment is to remove the so-called Henry VIII powers. I do so because I am someone who has argued and will continue to make the case for significant transfer of powers into this Parliament, but the use of this power basically removes the powers from this Parliament, removes the powers from the legislator and puts them into the hands of ministers, the executive. That cannot be right. That is why people rightly use the term power grab. It was not a term that I was particularly supportive of, but when I looked at the evidence, the evidence was quite clear that it would be legitimate to use that term. You could go through the evidence and there was plenty of it, but I will refer to the Dr and Professor Faye Glasgow Caledonian University in their evidence, Dr Tickle and Professor Britton. They say, and I quote, while powers of this kind have been used in the UK Government to adapt the statute book to the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union, Henry VIII powers are rightly controversial as they infringe upon the separation of powers, give legislative functions to the executive and can be imposed with modest opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny, particularly in circumstances when they are used on an emergency basis. Therefore, it is a pointy principle that I bring forward amendment 1 today. On that pointy principle, despite the fact that my Labour party supports many aspects in the bill, although we think that it should be done differently, but we support quite a lot in the bill. On that pointy principle, we could not vote for this bill because you cannot vote to take powers from the legislator and put them into the hands of the executive. At the stage 1 debate, the best speaker for me for the SNP benches was John Mason, when he made the point that he hoped that the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister would have a long career in those positions. However, at some point, another Government could be in place. It is the principle like that. It is the principle that whoever is in power should not have those powers. I am grateful to Mr Rowley for giving way. I understand all the points that Mr Rowley makes and the strength of his opinion on that point. Of course, I would not in any way question his commendation of John Mason and his debating skills. What I would ask Mr Rowley to reflect on is the amendments that I have advanced today in relation to the specific powers that Mr Rowley mentions. I have conceded that the stage 1 debate and I have brought forward the changes this morning, whereby any exercise of those powers would have to be approved by Parliament. A parliamentary regulation would have to be brought forward. It cannot be undertaken under the made affirmative process, so it has to be under the draft affirmative process. Parliament would have to actively approve any changes before they were brought into effect. That could only happen if the gateway mechanism had been approved because we were dealing with a public health emergency. Since the bill was published, two very substantial additional safeguards have been put into the bill by the Government in its amendments in response to the concerns that have been expressed by commentators. Indeed, some of the commentators that Mr Rowley has cited have since reflected publicly on the points that I made in the stage 1 debate and welcomed the steps that the Government has taken to revise the proposals accordingly in the light of the comments that I made in the stage 1 debate. I acknowledge that the Deputy First Minister has attempted to address those concerns, but what I would have to say is that, based on the evidence, that does not go far enough. In the interests of democracy and in the interests of ensuring that this Parliament is the legislator and has the power to do so, and in the interests that no executive should be taking powers away from this Parliament and taking them into themselves, it does not go far enough. The concerns remain, even though the gateway mechanism is an attempt to address that and acknowledge that, but it does not go far enough. On that basis, it is on the basis of principle. If we allow this to happen, what happens in the future when the next Government decides it? When I heard the Henry VIII powers, I thought, where did that come from? It basically was in 1539 that then King wanted to make law without reference to the English Parliament. That is where those powers came about. In 2022, for a Scottish Government and SNP Government to look at using similar powers to which Henry VIII did in 1539 to take powers away from the legislator in this Parliament, it has to be a point of principle. It is a shame, because, as I say, I certainly personally, having sat through the evidence sessions, having read the responses that we have had, there is a lot in there that could be supported, but you cannot support taking powers from the legislator and putting them into the executive. That has to be a point of principle. Will the member accept, though, that Parliament effectively has a veto on that, so that it would have to be a conscious decision at the time? Mr Mason, would he accept that the best veto would not be to have the Henry VIII powers in the first place? If we ended up in a situation in which we have another pandemic or some sort or another, that threat is more likely. A lot of people say that, with the Spanish Flu 100 years ago, our experience is that the Government would not have a problem coming to Parliament and put legislation through quickly. Many us have not just been supportive of the Government, but have stood shoulder to shoulder with the Government through the pandemic to support what they were doing under massively difficult circumstances, but that is a principle too far. I am grateful to Mr Rowley for giving me a comment, but he makes my argument for me that the risk of further pandemic threat is accepted by us all. Parliament had to legislate in extremis with primary legislation rushed through Parliament to try to address that situation. What I am trying to do here is to learn early lessons from the pandemic and equip the statute book with the ability for us to respond with necessary parliamentary oversight on the exercise of those powers. Indeed, Fiona De Laundris, whom Mr Rowley was quoting, has welcomed the steps that I have taken to strengthen parliamentary oversight. Mr Rowley is making a speech and making comments that might have been relevant in a stage 1 debate and were relevant prior to the stage 1 debate. In the light of the Government's amendments that are proposed today, I suggest that it is not adapting to the changes that are advanced where parliamentary oversight is being given, a veto is, as Mr Mason says, being given to Parliament on any such changes that Parliament does not believe to be appropriate, but what we are doing is putting in place the means by which we can respond speedily in a situation that Parliament has thought about well in advance, which is the 12-week consultation and the three-stage process of parliamentary scrutiny to make legislative changes all about. I have welcomed the steps that the Government has taken because it has suggested listening, but it does not go far enough. That is the whole point. There is a pointy principle here to take powers from the legislator and take them into the executive is fundamentally— I am grateful to Mr Rowley again. That is not what is happening here. That might have been a legitimate accusation at the stage 1 debate. It is not a legitimate accusation just now because I have brought forward an amendment that essentially says that Parliament must approve any such changes exercised under the one line in this bill that Mr Rowley wants to remove. I would respectfully disagree and I would argue that if the Government looked at this evidence and took it seriously, it would support the amendment that I am putting forward, the only amendment that I am putting forward is based on principle. The principle is that the Scottish Parliament is sovereign. The Scottish Parliament is the legislator, not the executive. On that basis, convener, I would simply say that I would hope that the Government would look at this again. It is a pointy principle and it is wrong for any Government, regardless of its political colours, to take powers from the Scottish Parliament, the legislator, and hoard them into themselves. Sadly, the term, I think that Murdo Fraser coined, which was a power grab. Sadly, having looked at the evidence, I have concluded that that is a fair term to use. Therefore, I would urge the Government—I know that they are not going to support this today—to think again and to support at stage 3 removing the Henry VIII powers. I do not believe that the Government needs those powers and I think that there is a point of fundamental principle that needs to be recognised. Thank you very much, convener. Mr Rowley and myself had a pact before the meeting that, if he was brief, I would be brief, but I knew he could not stick to his end at the bargain. However, rightly so, because he had some really important points to make, which I agree with. I sit on the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I am not here representing them, but, as this committee knows, we produce a report that you have seen into the Delegated Powers in this bill. We made some recommendations. I will just take you through them before speaking very briefly about my amendments in this group. The recommendations were that the Scottish Government should bring forward amendments on each power that could be exercised subject to the made affirmative provision. This was where our main area of concern was the use of the made affirmative procedure. The first one was that the Scottish ministers should provide a written statement prior to the instrument coming into force, providing an explanation and evidence as to why the ministers consider the regulations need to be made urgently when using the made affirmative procedure. The second one was that Scottish ministers include an assessment of the impact of the instrument on those affected by it, and that statutory instruments made under the powers are subject to a sunset provision. I laid some amendments yesterday at the Justice Committee, as I do today at this committee, which reflect those recommendations. The first of my three amendments in this group, amendment 10, if members read that amendment, you will, I am afraid, struggle to work out what it does. I have a long and technical explanation, which I will spare you, but it essentially removes the ability of ministers to use the made affirmative procedure, quite blunt. If you agree with that, that's fine, that's all well and good. The other amendments fall. If you don't agree with that, we have some alternatives. The alternative would be amendments 11 and 12. Amendment 11 says that, if ministers think that a regulation should be made urgently, they should explain why, with evidence, to the Parliament and that there should be a vote on it. As this committee is well aware, using the made affirmative procedure does not allow a vote, the stuff just goes through without scrutiny. That reflects on the recommendations of the DPLR committee. Amendment 12 says that there should be a statement with evidence, there should be an assessment of the impact of the regulations and that there should be a sunset clause of a maximum of one year. Given that I am a very reflective sort and I listen to arguments, I listened to the arguments of Mr Swinney's colleague Keith Brown yesterday and I listened to Mr Swinney today. I think that my amendment 12 probably goes a bit too far in the respect of it imposes that sunset clause of one year pretty much across the board. Having reflected that Mr Swinney's amendment 28 is probably better than that one, so it won't press 12 but it will press the others and I will end it there. I did promise to be brief. Thank you Mr Simpson. If I could please move to a murder phrase and have to speak to amendment number six and other amendments in the group. Thank you. Thank you, convener. As this is my first contribution, I should remind members of my register of interests. I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland and I derive some income from rental properties. I have four amendments in this group that I will talk to and then I'll comment briefly on the other amendments from the Government and other members. My amendment 7 seeks to remove in its entirety section 1 of the bill. This goes to the heart of our objections to the bill brought before us and whether it is necessary at all to legislate at the present time to make permanent what were emergency and extraordinary powers taken to Scottish ministers to deal with the public health crisis. We explored those issues in detail during stage 1 and in stage 1 debates. I am not going to rehearse all those arguments today, but I believe that we have still to hear a credible justification as to why the public health measures need to be in this bill. I cannot be dealt with in another way, and the committee is held from a range of stakeholders who share that view, and also our public engagement showed 90 per cent opposition from those who responded to those measures in the bill as being proposed. The member accepts that, in anything in life, it is better to be prepared. You can never be prepared completely for what is going to come up, but we all have car insurance. We all have a variety of things in life to be prepared for events, and it is the principle here not that it is better to be prepared than we were in March 2020. As I set out in the stage 1 debate, there is an alternative approach that was laid out to the committee by Professor Fiona De Laundras, who said that it would be quite possible for all parties to agree draft legislation that could be sitting on the shelf ready to be introduced as and when required. Let me finish my sentence if I may, Mr Fairlie. The Parliament has already demonstrated, as it did two years ago, that it can move very quickly in an emergency situation to pass legislation. The important point—this touches on the comments that Mr Rowley made a short time ago—by progressing in that way, it would allow Parliament at that point to amend the legislation. For Parliament, it is a whole unless members propose amendments. That method of dealing with the law is not possible if we legislate in this way that passes the power to ministers to produce regulations which Parliament cannot amend. While Parliament does have the right to say yes or no to regulations—and I welcome the amendments from the cabinet secretary that strengthen Parliament's power—Parlament has no power to amend regulations. By making it a matter of primary legislation, that puts the power back in the hands of Parliament, not just to vote yes or no, but to bring forward amendments. Mr Fairlie wants to intervene. I will give way. Thank you very much to Mr Murdoff Fraser for giving way. You have mentioned Professor De Laundras, and no one has mentioned Professor De Laundras. However, as the passage of this conversation went on during stage 1, I put it to her, and I am quoting her. The bill simply means that, in the legislative sense, we are preparing ourselves for the future so that, in the event of another emergency, we have the legislative competence to enable us to deal with it in this Parliament and ask her if that was a fair assessment. She said yes, and that is exactly right. We keep hearing about Professor De Laundras being against this provision, but she said that, in a legislative sense, we are preparing ourselves for the competence to enable us to deal with it in this Parliament. Yes, that is exactly right. I fully understand the position that Alex Rowley has taken, but the Government has stepped up. They have listened to what has been said, and surely nobody in this Parliament would suggest that we should not have the legislative competence here in order to deal with any emergency that arises. We do have the legislative competence here. It is simply a matter of whether we decide that we legislate now and put the power in the hands of ministers to produce regulations that Parliament can only say yes or no to, or whether we retain power in the hands of the Parliament, which can then propose amendments or not to what is being proposed. I think that we just have a fundamental difference of view on this particular issue, Mr Fairlie. I wonder if you agree with me that the whole point of being able to amend a potential legislation allows for that flexibility, because we do not know what is coming in the track. If a legislation passes and we have an inability to amend the legislation, that constrains our ability to approach whatever is coming in the track. Thank you, Mr Whittle, for that intervention. I think that he makes a very fair point. That is the purpose of my amendment 7. If amendment 7 does not attract favour, which it may not, I have a number of other amendments in this group that all seek to improve the measures in the bill. My amendment 6 is very similar to amendment 11, in the name of my colleague Graham Simpson, but it is narrower in its reach. It requires a statement of reasons by ministers why the MAP procedure must be used. That was a recommendation of the committee at stage 1 following the evidence that we heard from a number of stakeholders. I think that it is a very sensible and reasonable amendment, and I would commend it to colleagues. My amendment 8 requires an assessment to be made of the impact of any regulations on impacted persons, including retail groups, industry organisations, trade bodies and any other relevant groups, before ministers introduce regulations. It requires ministers to consult insofar as it is practical with such groups prior to the introduction of such regulations. That addresses a concern that has been raised over the past two years by a variety of stakeholders, particularly in the business community, about the very negative impact that regulations had on businesses. They were not adequately consulted around those before they were introduced, nor was there a proper assessment conducted of the impact. A very good example of that is the vaccine passport scheme, which, as we know, was very controversial and strenuously opposed by business. They felt that they were not adequately consulted on that before it was introduced, nor was there any proper assessment done of its impact. What amendment 8 would require ministers, before bringing in regulations, to consider the impact that it would have and to consult, but only so far as it is practical, because I understand the points that are being made about the need to act at speed in response to a public health emergency. Amendment 9 deals with the issue of the Covid-19. I would be grateful to Mr Fraser for giving me that. I wonder if Mr Fraser could set out what he considers to be where practicable in his consultation exercise. I would contend that there was extensive consultation with a myriad of organisations. What was difficult to secure was unanimity, which I think is the point that Mr Fraser is getting at. I would say to the cabinet secretary that I am not expecting unanimity, nor am I proposing this amendment, any sort of right of veto on the part of stakeholders against the actions of ministers. It is simply a requirement to consult. The reason that I put in the qualification insofar as practical is a recognition that we might be dealing with in a very fast-moving public health situation. Ministers may require to act very quickly, and therefore I do not want to tie the hands of ministers entirely. Given the experience that we have had over the past two years, I think that there has been quite serious concern by members of the business community about the negative impact regulations that were imposed on them without adequate consultation, I think that obligations should be put on ministers to consult. Again, insofar as it is practical to do so. Finally, my amendment 9 relates to the issue of the Covid inquiry. We have had the Covid inquiry established. In fact, I think that we have a statement coming from the cabinet secretary this afternoon with an update to Parliament. It does seem to me rather strange that with the inquiry just being established, we have not had any opportunity yet to hear any evidence presented to the Covid inquiry. We have not had any opportunity to listen to the view of the inquiry in terms of recommendations and lessons to be learned, yet we are rushing to legislate for future pandemics until we have learned the lessons of this one. Therefore, my amendment 9 seeks to delay implementation of this bill until such time as the Covid inquiry has concluded so that we can see what lessons might be learned. I will turn briefly and mention the other amendments in this group. I would support the amendments put forward by my colleague Brian Whittle, amendments 4 and 5, and I think that he makes some fair points in moving them. Alec Rowley put forward amendment 1. I am very much supportive of that. In fact, if Mr Rowley had not put forward amendment 1, I would have put forward an amendment in similar terms. I think that Mr Rowley made a very eloquent case as to why the Henry VIII power should be removed and gave us a very helpful history lesson in relation to the powers of monarchs in that respect. I would reiterate the point that I made a little time ago in response to Mr Mason and Mr Fairlie. While I welcome the amendments that have been brought forward by the Government, which restrict to an extent the operation of Henry VIII powers by the Government, they do not remove them entirely. Again, this is an issue about putting power in the hands of ministers rather than the hands of Parliament. Regulations, however qualified, regulations brought forward by ministers can only be voted yes or no to by Parliament. There is no opportunity for Parliament to amend these regulations, and that is why I believe that removing the Henry VIII powers is an essential move, and I will be supporting amendment 1. Finally, in relation to the Government amendments in this group, although they do not go far enough for me, they are nevertheless an improvement on the bill that is drafted, and I will be happy to support those. I listen to the cabinet secretary with interest and I appreciate his consideration of the amendments. The question of who decides what presents a significant and immediate health risk once evidence is gathered should be somebody with significant medical experience. What we are trying to do with this amendment is to ensure that chief medical officer has a role in determining what presents a significant harm to public health. I cannot see why that would potentially be an unreasonable ask. In relation to amendment 5, if you look at the wording of what I put in the amendment, the word consideration here is really important, because what we are trying to do here is to ensure that there is a balance between the impact that the regulations could have on long-term health matters versus taking against a potential threat. One of the lessons that we have learned from Covid is that there are significant long-term health issues, and they should always be taken into account when making a decision, because to not accept that the consideration should be given, what in essence you are saying is that the Government does not need to take into consideration long-term health risks when taking those issues. I hear the cabinet secretary's preparedness to maybe explore this further, but again, I think that that is entirely reasonable. Obviously, I will be supporting Mr Rowley's amendment here. I think that the word that he uses is one of extreme principle that I concur with. As Mr Fraser says, I think that the Government's amendments are a move forward, and we will support them. We do not go as far as we would like them to go, but we will be supporting them. Again, Mr Fraser's amendments, we will be supporting. Mr Simpson, of course, has eloquence with his points. I think that I will definitely be supporting his amendments, although he is dropping number 12. Thank you, Mr Rowley. Can you just confirm if you are going to press or withdraw the amendment? I will be pressing. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We do not agree that there will be a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. The result is that there are three, four and three against the amendment. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment 4, I will now use my casting vote as convener in order for the committee to reach a decision, and I will vote against amendment number 4. Therefore, it is not agreed. Can I please call amendment number 5 in the name of Brian Whittle, already debated with amendment number 4? Brian, to move or not to move? Question is that amendment 5 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, and there will be a division. Can those in favour, please raise their hands. The result of the vote is that there are three, four and three against. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment number 5, I will now use my casting vote as convener in order for the committee to reach a decision. I will vote against amendment number 5, and therefore the committee disagrees with amendment number 5. Can I call amendment number 23 in the name of the cabinet secretary? The question is that amendment number 23 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed, so there will be a division. Those in favour, please raise your hands. The result is that we have five for yes and one against, and therefore the amendment is passed. I will call amendment number 1 in the name of Alex Rowley, already debated with amendment number 4. Alex Rowley to move or not to move? Thank you. The question is that amendment number 1 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment number 1, please raise your hands. Those against, please raise your hands. The result of the vote is that there are three against and three for. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment number 1, I will now use my casting vote as convener in order for the committee to reach a decision. I will therefore vote against amendment number 1 and the committee disagrees. I call on amendment number 24 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment number 4. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to move formally, please? Thank you. The question is that amendment number 24 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed on amendment number 24, so those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against, please raise your hand. The result is five for and one against, therefore the amendment is passed and agreed. I call on amendment number 10 in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment number 4. I remind members that if amendment number 10 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments number 25 and 26 as it is a preemption. Graham Simpson to move or not to move? Thank you. The question is that amendment number 10 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. So there will be a division. Can those in favour, please raise their hands. And those against, please raise your hands. Thank you. As the outcome of the division is a tie on amendment number 10, I will now use my casting vote as covena in order for the committee to reach a decision and I will vote against amendment number 10, therefore the committee disagrees the amendment. I call amendment number 25 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment number 4. Can the cabinet secretary please move formally? Thank you. The question is that amendment number 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Okay, we have a division again. Can those in favour of amendment number 25, please raise your hands. And those against? Sorry, those against, please raise your hand. Thank you. The result is five, yes, one for no. So amendment number 25 is passed. I call amendment number 26 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment number 4. Cabinet secretary, to move formally please. Thank you. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Okay, there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 26, please raise your hand. Those against? Thank you. The result is five, four, one against, therefore the amendment is passed. I'll call on amendment number 11 in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment number 4. Graham Simpson, to move or not to move? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment number 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Okay, there will be a division. Can I ask those in favour? Please raise your hands. Those against? Please raise your hands. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment number 11, I will now use my casting vote as convener in order for the committee to reach a decision. I will vote against amendment number 11, therefore the committee disagrees amendment number 11. I call on amendment number 6 in the name of Murdo Fraser, already debated with amendment number 4. Murdo Fraser, to move or not to move? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment number 6 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour, please raise your hand. Those against? Please raise your hand. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment number 6, I will now use my casting vote as convener in order for the committee to reach a decision. I will vote against amendment number 6, therefore the committee disagrees with amendment number 6. I call amendment number 12 in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment number 4. Graham Simpson, did you want to move? Not moved. Thank you. I will now call on amendment number 27 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment number 4. Cabinet secretary, to move formally please. Thank you. The question is that amendment number 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour, please raise your hand. Those against? Thank you. We have five, four and one against, therefore the amendment is passed. I will now call amendment number 28 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment number 4. Cabinet secretary, to move formally please. Thank you. The question is that amendment number 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. And those against? Thank you. We've got five, four and one against, therefore the amendment number 28 is agreed. I'm going to call amendment number 7 in the name of Murdo Fraser, already debated with amendment number 4. Murdo Fraser, to move or not to move? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment number 7 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against, please raise your hands. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment number 7, I will now use my casting vote as convener. I will vote against amendment number 7 and therefore disagree the amendment, although section 1 is agreed. The question is that sections 2 to 4 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you very much. We are moving on to the group 2, which is education regulations, use of powers and safeguards. We are short of time, so if members could please try and keep the contributions a bit shorter. I would like to welcome— Just for the sake of absolute clarity, Mr Fraser's amendment number 7, which the committee disagreed to, was to leave out section 1. I assume, because of that vote, you are not putting section 1 to the committee just for absolute clarity. Yes, that's correct. The section has been agreed. Thank you. I welcome Stephen Kerr to the committee, and it's your first time attending this meeting. Can I invite you to declare anything that is recorded in your register of interests that is relevant into the remit of this committee? I don't have any relevant interests particular. Thank you very much and welcome. We are now moving on to group number 2, and this is education regulations, use of powers and safeguards. I call amendment 112, in the name of Oliver Mundell, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Oliver Mundell, can you please move amendment 112 and speak to all the amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. I move amendment 112 and the other amendments in my name in this group. Amendment 112, along with 115, 117, 118, 134, 136, 140 and 145 seek to remove what Graham Simpson's amendments have left behind. That's my preference, as I think these sections and these provisions are not required at this time, and I won't rehearse the arguments made by Murdo Fraser at stage 1 and again here today in the interests of time. More generally, the other amendments thereafter seek to raise the bar for using these provisions and introduce additional safeguards and reassurances. We've heard from the Deputy First Minister already this morning that we should be informed by the experience of the pandemic. A number of those amendments speak to what went well during the pandemic in terms of consultation with stakeholders. I know that consensus is one of the Deputy First Minister's watch words when it comes to how he likes to proceed in politics. I hope that those amendments will be taken in the spirit that they're tabled and should there be drafting errors or things that don't quite meet the Government's taste, that he will be willing to work with me to bring forward revised amendments at stage 3 that we can all agree on. There are other amendments in the group that speak to what I believe are the Scottish Government's mistakes. I think that we have to learn from some of the mistakes in education, which is one of the most difficult areas that were caught up in the Covid-19 pandemic. Having been back at my old school yesterday speaking with young people, we continue to see the very devastating impact that educational disruption has had on them. As a parent myself, I continue to worry and wonder whether the Government and indeed the Parliament got everything right, whether we found the right balance. I don't doubt anyone's sincerity in trying to find that balance, but I think that there were certainly times where the Government overstepped, continued to keep restrictions in place for young people far beyond the point at which they were necessary. I don't think that we always got the balance right between the child's best interests or wider interests and the public health risk. I'm keen through the amendments that I'll talk through briefly that we don't make those mistakes again. Amendments 118 and 130 seek a report from the children's commissioner speaking to children's rights, and it would look at whether or not the proposed use of powers is proportionate and necessary. Of course, the decision on that front under this legislation would ultimately be for ministers, but, when we've got such a significant source of expertise sitting at our disposal, I think that it would be worth hearing from that office, which does an excellent job for speaking up for young people. I think that that would provide some reassurance that the different way. I'm just interested to know quite how the commissioners are going to be involved in that. If they are to make a judgment as to whether the powers are proportionate and necessary, they would then need to look at all the medical advice, all the scientific advice, all the advice that the Government's getting, the commissioner would have to look at. Is that what he's arguing for? Yes, I think that they would have to look at that advice, look at what ministers were saying and balance up that part of the evidence with their own expertise in children's rights, children's welfare, children's wellbeing and balance up some of the difficult questions. I'm not saying that they would have a veto, I'm saying that they would offer their views so that we collectively, as parliamentarians and the Government itself and the wider public, would be more informed as to where that balance sat. During the pandemic, one of the things that we've seen, particularly when it comes to education, is that we've sometimes tipped towards a balance that looks very narrowly at public health without looking at the wider health and wellbeing implications for young people. The Children's Commissioner at several points during the pandemic has drawn our attention to concerns. It's an additional safeguard that would help young people to feel confident that the Government was taking their rights and interests into full consideration. Amendment 120 looks at local authority consent for closing schools. I think that this in a sense is a probing amendment at this stage. I'm not saying that this is in its final form, but I think that there is a question for Parliament about the correct balance between ministerial powers and the statutory duties of local authorities when it comes to educating our young people. I think that amendment 12 promotes consensus and it's hard to envisage a situation in which local authorities are going to oppose public health measures. It's important that it's there so that their role is properly respected. This comes back to the John Mason principle, which cuts both ways. There's the fear that the same people could be making the same wrong decisions but equally as hard as it sometimes is to imagine that there could be something worse in the future. I wouldn't want to see future ministers pushing ahead with school closures without being able to satisfy local authorities that they were the right decision. Is he arguing that the local authority, which is democratically elected, I accept, should be able to overrule the national elected government? It comes down to the system that we have in Scotland, which sees local authorities as the provider of education in their authority. Of course, the Government has a role in working with them and in directing national policy, but I would like to see a situation in which we are not denying children their education and we are not closing educational establishments without first getting that agreement. Putting a duty on ministers to seek consent is the right way to go about it. Perhaps the amendment, as it is currently worded, is too strong. I am willing to listen to what the Government has to say and try to find a better balance that seeks consensus. However, as the bill currently stands, I think that the balance is wrong. It puts too much power in the hands of ministers and does not recognise the role that our local authorities have when it comes to the delivery of education. I am grateful to Mr Mandell for giving me a chance to set out what role he sees in the judgment for public health advice of the nature that the Government and all public authorities have received. The point that Mr Mason put to him, which Mr Mandell did not address, is the interface between local authority decision making and the other responsible body for the running of education at local level in Scotland. However, public health advice might lead to a particular conclusion with which a local authority is not comfortable but for which there are real dangers to the public health of that local population. I guess that, Deputy First Minister, it comes down to who you believe is the right person to take that final decision. I think that those are difficult questions of balance. At times during the pandemic, when it came to decisions around schools, we opted for a national approach when there was significant local variation. At later points in the pandemic, those variations were taken into account in various of the regulations and measures that brought forward. In trying to bring forward something so significant as closing educational establishments, there is a balancing question. The public health aspect is not the only aspect. It is not the only consideration for decision makers. As I know, it would not be the only consideration for the Scottish Government. I know that the Scottish Government would want to balance those things out. I think that there is a role for the local authority in deciding when that point had been reached. By putting a duty of consent or something similar on the Scottish Government to seek agreement of authorities, it would promote that partnership working. It would promote the type of culture that is going to see a successful response to any future pandemic. However, as I say, I am willing to look at the wording of the amendment or a different amendment that puts that principle on the face of the bill. I do not see how, in a system where local authorities are responsible for delivering education, we can have Government ministers tell them on narrow public health grounds that we have reached the point where their establishments must close. Indeed, during the pandemic, we did not see a total closure of schools. We ended up with hubs and other things. We do not know exactly what the circumstances would be in the future. However, given that we have 32 local authorities with 32 different sets of circumstances, if we are going to close educational establishments that are responsible for them, they have a right to have a significance in such a decision. That is purely a question out of curiosity. If ministers are required to get consent from local authorities and there is a national public health emergency, but a particular individual within a local authority says no, we do not agree with that, who takes responsibility for the public health of that area? A local authority educator on the basis of education alone makes that decision. Who takes the final responsibility? We are going to be having a public inquiry into what has happened during coronavirus. If you take that decision-making power away from the Government and put it in the hands of a local authority, do we have to have public inquiries for every local authority who may take a different decision? The role of local authorities in the pandemic will certainly be something that is looked at. However, in effect, Mr Fairlie makes the argument that we should not legislate at this time. We should wait for the public inquiry and we should wait until we know the shape of any future threat before putting very definite things on the statute book. The problem here is that we are looking to put in place wide-ranging, very loose powers in the hands of the Government. It is about balancing provisions. If you want wide-ranging, nonspecific powers for an unknown future pandemic, you have to be willing to accept that there may be limitations on that. That is why I think that the better approach would have been as has been set out at length. To have draft legislation ready, agreed, continually review it and look at it and then implement it quickly at the time. In terms of local government, the clue is in the name. Government is an elected body, and while in Scotland we have some of the weakest local government in Europe, and we have seen more and more being centralised. There is a clear role for local government, for elected, accountable politicians, and there needs to be a coming together with the Scottish Government to determine and look at what did happen and learn the lessons for that. Do you believe that local government and democratically elected officials are being sidelined? In the interests of time, I will say yes, and I move on to look at an education advisory council that is covered in amendments 1, 2, 1 and 1, 3, 1. For me, that was an aspect of the pandemic that was not perfect. The pandemic response was not perfect. It worked relatively well, and I would want to ensure that any future government using those powers adopted a similar approach. Again, I am not tied to the wording in those amendments of my best attempt alongside the business team to come up with something workable with the resources at the Government's disposal. Again, I would be happy to work with them if changes were needed. Amendment 1, 2, 2 proposes to introduce a delay of 40 hours before school closures, and 1, 3, 3 would introduce a grace period before enforcement of any of the regulations that are made in those sections of the bill. Those are important to give people time for planning and to recognise that, whilst there often is a need to act very quickly, that trying to move too quickly creates far greater problems for the system as a whole. Again, I am willing to look at whether those strike the right balance. It is important in relation to 1, 2, 2 to remember that there are other means of closing schools. I do not believe that we have any local authorities or any individual schools where the relevant individuals or authorities would seek to keep a school open where they believed that there was a significant and serious threat to their young people. Amendment 1, 2, 3 promotes educational continuity and seeks assurances from the Government that appropriate alternative provision would be put in place before schools were closed. 1, 2, 4 seeks to promote best practice on communication between pupils, parents, carers and schools. 1, 3, 2 places on the Government adjudate to seek agreement, which might fit in with amendment 1, 2, 0 and perhaps there is room for reasonableness there. 1, 3, 7 places or seeks the early removal of regulations made under those provisions. In a sense, it is designed to promote reconsideration. Amendments 1, 3, 8 and 1, 3, 9 are a review mechanism in the event that the minister is responsible for making the regulations changes. For me, that speaks to the delicate question of balance. Given the very difficult judgment calls that are involved in this, for those who have to implement any regulations, it is important for them to know that the Government Minister of Responsibility continues to believe that they are absolutely necessary. Amendment 1, 4, 1 looks at the exercise of professional judgment. Again, it is designed to make those provisions more workable. One of the concerns throughout the pandemic has been, and it speaks to Mr Rowley's point about who is best placed to make decisions and where responsibility sits. Sometimes those responsible for implementing decisions can see that in individual circumstances and in relation to individual young people, that implementing the provisions, as intended by ministers, might create a greater risk or cause greater disadvantage. There has to be some reassurance for those who would be asking to do something very difficult, that they would be able to exercise their professional judgment and where they were acting in good faith and doing what they believed to be the right thing, that they would not face severe consequences. Amendment 1, 4, 2 is on the readiness for remote learning. That was one of the areas where I think the SNP Government response was lacking. We were very slow to move on remote learning. We were underprepared. Our schools were already struggling and had been pushed to breaking point by reductions in teacher numbers. We were not in a confident place going into the pandemic and were not well resourced to move learning online. In a sense, amendment 1, 9, which Stephen Kerr's amendment 119 will leave him to speak to. However, the idea that in future we could close schools without having learned lessons of the pandemic is unthinkable. It is important that that is recognised on the face of the bill because, to hand the Government powers to close schools to deny young people the right to in-person education requires a balancing provision that we have done and everything we can and pulled out all the stops to make sure that their needs are met. Amendment 1, 4, 3 seeks to put a duty to explore alternatives and mitigations on ministers and to report back on what was considered and why those options were not pursued. Again, having that information is important to build confidence in any measures that are taken and provide people with the reassurance that they need, where some of those decisions are being taken, their decisions of last resort are not taken forward because they are the easiest solution for the Government. I will leave it there. I know that there are a lot of amendments in this group, so I appreciate if everyone could be as brief as I can just for an essence of time. If I can move on to Stephen Kerr, please. I am very grateful to be able to present the specific amendment 119, which seeks to ensure that, before making regulations, to close schools that Scottish ministers ensure that every child or young person is provided with a laptop and an internet connection, now it won't surprise you or the committee or the cabinet secretary that, in principle, opposed this bill. However, given the fact that this probably will become law, it is important that we try to improve the bill as much as possible. In that respect, as the mayor of particular passion for me, that we improve it in a way that will narrow the attainment gap that we already know is growing and ensure that no child in Scotland, especially those who come from the poorest families, is in any way left behind. I was, until a couple of weeks ago, the chair of the Education, Children and Young People Committee and heard evidence in relation to this bill while I was sitting in that committee. One issue that was touched upon in the evidence that was presented to the committee was the issue of remote learning, which has been mentioned by my colleague Oliver Wendell. We did ask for assurances specifically from the cabinet secretary about the assurance that we would like to see in relation to the provision of laptops and internet connections, particularly in the circumstances when the Government was making a decision to close schools. It is a Government committee. It is an SNP election commitment to provide young people with devices and internet connections. I am genuinely, and the cabinet secretary may be surprised to hear me say this, I am genuinely trying to be helpful by bringing forward this particular amendment because it brings to the fore the fulfilment of that particular promise. I am hoping to be able to appeal to the Government and to the Deputy First Minister in particular by using his own words. Just over a year ago, John Swinney said that we will end the digital divide between those who have access to the rich educational resources of the internet and open that electronic world to every child in Scotland. We are determined to tear down the barriers to education that too many children face. I agree with all that, by the way. I just wonder if he goes a little bit too far with his amendment, the wording of it, because I agree with a lot of what he said I agree with. I think that every child should have a laptop or similar and an internet connection. If you took this literally, which when it is in law you have to take it literally, it would mean that one child not having an internet connection would stop a school or possibly multiple schools being closed. Does he not feel that that is going just a little bit too far? I am not hung up on a particular set of words, but I am hung up on the idea that something has to be done to assure ministers that when they are making these sorts of drastic decisions that provisions exist for every child to be able to access education learning remotely. That is what I am hung up on. I know that I know that John Mason would share my passion and commitment to make sure that that is the case. I think that there is great virtue in underscoring that commitment, which I hope we all share by including it in the bill to actually have words in the bill that say this, because what we know is—and I refer back to the Deputy First Minister's words— the barriers to education that too many children face. He referenced in the quote that I gave. Those barriers became higher and larger in every dimension during the pandemic. If the bill is to fulfil its purpose, as has been repeatedly stated by ministers, then I hope that the Government will accept this amendment, that when schools are to be shut down for good reason that no child is left behind, that no young person's educational pathway is disrupted even more than it will be disrupted by virtue of the closure of a school and that they will not be denied access to learning, to education, to teachers, to some kind of an educational experience and to quote him, will not be denied access to the rich educational resources of the internet. I think that that is something that we should all aspire for every child in Scotland. That is why, passionately, I moved amendment 119. Thank you very much, Mr Kerr. Can I move to Graham Simpson? I am pleased to move amendment 13 and other amendments in the group. The alarm bells were ringing in the cabinet secretary's head when Mr Kerr said that I am trying to be helpful, but on this case I think he actually was trying to be helpful. I have got six amendments in this group. I will be extremely brief because I know you are up against the clock and I suspect you will be sitting long into the night on this one. So, 13, 14 and 15, 16, 17 and 18, so 13, 14 and 15 seek to remove sections 8, 9 and 10. 16, 17 and 18 I will come on to. So, let's look at what section 8 does. That gives ministers the power to make regulations relating to the continuing operation of an educational establishment for a specified period. This is a power which Oliver Mundell has spoken of extensively already, which would give ministers powers to close schools. Sweeping powers, they put far-reaching consequences. Closing schools, in my view, has in some cases been harmful and if we are ever to go down this route again it should be with proper scrutiny and my view actually is to do that we should be having primary legislation which can be done at pace and that would allow for at least some of the severe implications to be explored. That's the route I think we should be going down and that's why I'm seeking to remove this power altogether but assuming the committee doesn't agree with that I'll make that assumption then I'm very persuaded by the amendments, a series of amendments from Oliver Mundell and Stephen Kerr so I'd recommend those to the committee. Section 9, which I'm also seeking to remove, that gives ministers the power to make regulations requiring a relevant manager of school boarding establishment to take steps to restrict or prohibit access to the establishment for a specified period. Same argument goes, sweeping powers, really severe consequences potentially and I said I'll be brief, I am being brief so I'll move on to section 10. That gives ministers powers over student accommodation so essentially to restrict access to that or to close them down. The very same arguments apply to all three sections and I think they should be removed from the bill. That deals with 13, 14 and 15. 16, 17 and 18 are very similar to the amendments which you've already considered. The committee has unfortunately rejected them. They were extremely reasonable based on the recommendations of the DPLR committee. I suspect in the heart of hearts people like Mr Mason would agree with them, but given that you've already voted on Mr Mason's itching to come in, do you want to come in? I do agree with the DPLR and his own arguments that perhaps the made affirmative was used a bit too often. I'm just wary of ruling it out too much and we do not agree that there is some place for the made affirmative but not every day. The DPLR committee actually said that the default position should be used the affirmative procedure. The committee did not rule out completely the made affirmative procedure, but it did recommend that certain things should be put in place, if that is to be used, which was the purpose of my amendments which you've already voted against, Mr Mason, despite saying that you apparently agree with me. However, given that the committee has already rejected them, I won't press them. I'm not going to force them to vote again, but I would be keen to work with the cabinet secretary if he's up for it. It's up to him to see if we can improve things in this area. I won't press them anyway, but I'll just make that offer. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr Simpson. I know I'm going to highlight it, but we're at page 8 out of page 65, and it's 1041. If I can move on to the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 36, and other amendments in the group. I'm afraid, convener, that I'm going to attain the committee a little, because there's a large amount of material here that members would expect me to comment on. I now respect the members of Parliament. I have no plans for this evening, convener. This is a large, important group of amendments. I'm telling firstly to the amendments in my name, amendments 36 to 39. As in group 1, I consider the key overarching amendments in this group are those that introduced the gateway vote mechanism, amendments 38 to 39, which the committee has supported in relation to the first group, or the comparable group. These amendments and the rationale for them are substantively identical to amendment 23, which has just been agreed. It is my view that these amendments substantially address a number of the concerns that members have in regards to parliamentary scrutiny. Also, as debated in group 1, I have considered issues that were brought out during stage 1 by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, and this committee, and signalled in the Government's response to the committee's amendment 36, makes equivalent provision in part 2 of the bill, including for an explanation of urgency if the made affirmative procedure needs to be used in urgent circumstances. Amendments 16, 17 and 18, Lords by Mr Simpson, would either mean that the made affirmative procedure was not available for regulations in this part of the bill, or would lead to delay. There are significant safeguards in the bill, and the Government amendments today add to those to ensure that regulations are only made urgently when that is necessary to meet the public health emergency that is faced, and that they are enforced for as short a time as possible. Mr Simpson's amendments would significantly undermine the provision that the bill is intended to put in place to protect people in the face of a future public health emergency. I hear what Mr Simpson has said, and I hope that, in good spirit, he can acknowledge that the Government has accepted a number of the arguments that have been advanced by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. My comment is on the record that we should only be using the made affirmative procedure where it is absolutely required. I welcome the dialogue that is under way with the committee about a form of expedited draft affirmative procedure that would enable parliamentary scrutiny before the effect of regulations is put into place. Fundamentally, as colleagues will understand, that comes down to just how quickly, what exactly is the definition of expedited. No stage want to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, but I also want to be able to, for Government, to be able to take action that is necessary to protect public health, and it is the reconciliation of that balance that is critical on this question. I am very happy to have further dialogue on that question. Yes, of course. You probably answered the question by saying that you are happy to have further dialogue, because I think that there is probably an accommodation that we could reach, Mr Swinney, between your desire to be able to act quickly, my desire to have more parliamentary scrutiny, and I think that there is somewhere that we could meet. I am happy to take up on your offer. I think that we all understand, and members, regardless of our reflections on the pandemic and regulations and restrictions, no member of Parliament suggests that there was no need for any restrictions whatsoever. All members of Parliament accept that point, and that is welcome. There are varying degrees to which the extent of the regulations was judged to be appropriate, and as many of them had to be done with quite the pace with which they were done. I accept that there is no black and white position in all of that. If we can perhaps approach that with some principles, which are that we have to move fast, but we have to maximise parliamentary scrutiny, and if we try to address a position in among those two principles, then I suspect that we have got some way. That is what I was trying to do in my interaction with the Delegated Powers Committee to try to signal that. Amendment 37 provides that urgent regulations under sections 8, 9 and 10, which only revoke any part of existing regulations, would be made by a laid no-procedure SSI. That would enable the swift removal of education regulations, which are no longer necessary and proportionate. That option would only be available where the new urgency test in section 12 proposed in amendment 36 is met. Amendment 137, in Mr Mundell's name, is connected to those provisions in that it would provide that education regulations could only be in place when public health protection regulations are in place. It may not necessarily have that effect if some regulations made under the public health provision may be permanent preparedness regulations in which this amendment would not achieve what it is trying to achieve. That is an unnecessary addition to the carefully crafted layers of safeguards that are in the bill to ensure that regulations are in place for no longer than necessary, as I have covered in amendments 38 and 39. Does not reflect the nature of a public health emergency might lead to different considerations in terms of health and education? I was hoping to achieve this, and I am happy to bring back an alternative word. At stage 3, it is to establish the principle that, if some regulations or individual parts of regulations are removed, that effectively those in education would be reconsidered. I feel that, in that prioritisation of how we have opened society back up, the order in which things have been considered have not necessarily gone in the favour of young people. Those are difficult balances, but I do not think that we should continue to have regulations in place that close schools and place restrictions on young people while we are removing other restrictions that have been made for the same reason. Those should have to be tested again. I agree with Mr Mundell, but I have to say that, in my experience of handling the pandemic, that was not always what I heard from Mr Mundell's colleagues, because we have had a number of endless exchanges in this committee about the importance of reopening aspects of society—pubs, clubs, airports and all sorts of things before schools. I agree with Mr Mundell's point, because the last thing that I want to do—I was the education secretary who took the decision to cancel exams in closed schools—was the difficult day of my life, walking up and down the floor, wondering at what moment we had to act, so abruptly and so early. I totally agree with Mr Mundell, but that was not what I heard at all times. If he agrees with me, and he thinks that that is the action that his Government or a future Government should take, surely he would want that protection in the bill to make sure that that debate was had properly at the time in the future, and that education and the right to education were prioritised above other aspects of society. I think that the bill makes that provision, but there is an argument that Mr Mundell and his colleagues need to reflect on about the consistency of the lines of argument that perhaps were being advanced during the pandemic. I say that in the respectful position that we are in in this exchange. As colleagues will deduce, I am therefore not in a position to support amendment 137, but what I will say is that I am happy to explore further questions as I will come on to different other questions in this respect in this amendment. Turning now to the remainder of the group, amendments 112, 115, 117, 13 to 15, 134, 136, 140, 145 leave out sections 5 to 13, the bill. Those powers are necessary and proportionate and have majority support in committee and in the chamber, so I cannot support those. Amendment 118, and its more general alternative amendment 130, proposes a new role for the children and young people's commissioner to consider and report on any proposed use of the education regulation making powers. No timescale is provided for the commissioner's report and no exception is offered for urgent cases. Those amendments would therefore seriously delay the Government in responding swiftly to a public health emergency. There is nothing within 118 that would stop the Government from acting. It is a duty to seek and have regard to it. It does not mean that it has to stop if it is not forthcoming. It is not designed as a delaying mechanism. I would envisage that the report would likely follow action having been taken. It is not worthy to be restrictive. I have been very clear in drafting the amendment that that was what I was seeking to achieve. Does he accept that principle that the report would be reasonable in principle, provided it did not delay ministers? The amendment does not provide for what Mr Mundell has outlined to me. I cannot support the amendment on the basis of its composition. I would be interested when you look at the wording of the amendment where it would stop ministers from taking action because the only duty places on them, in the first instance, is to seek that report. It is the answer that we must have regard to. If there is no report to have regard to, then you do not... The purpose of good legislation... You would have to have regard to it after the time. The purpose of the discussion that we are having today is to... Members of Parliament will be very conscious of this. We have to put in place precise wording for... This is the law that we are making. If that is passed, ministers must seek, ministers must have regard to. I am afraid that Mr Mundell is encouraging me to pass legislation that is far from clear with that amendment. On the basis of what is here, I am afraid that amendment could not be supported. Ministers are committed to preparing and publishing a children's rights and wellbeing impact assessment for the regulations. I would expect similar mechanisms to the four harms assessment process and the Covid education recovery group arrangements to ensure the impact on children and young people is fully understood and taken into account. Amendment 119 does not take into account how the provision of digital infrastructure and devices is organised in the education system or would be in the future and the role and functions of operators rather than the Scottish Government. The wording of the amendment is flawed. Laptops are to be provided irrespective of whether their establishment is to close or whether a young person already has a device. It does not consider the most appropriate device may not always be a laptop and the amendment is prescriptive in the use of the term laptop. It would present an unreasonable barrier, and this is the point that Mr Mason advanced in his intervention to Mr Kerr. It would present an unreasonable barrier to acting swiftly to address a public health emergency. The Government is committed to ensuring every child has access to a device by the end of this Parliament. Indeed, during the pandemic, significant investment from central government ensured that over 72,000 devices and 14,000 connections were provided to our most disadvantaged children and young people. We must and will continue to enhance young people's access to technology, but an open-ended requirement before ministers can take action, which is necessary and proportionate to protect public health, is not workable and could put children at a significant risk in the future. I understand what you are saying about the use of the word laptop, but I am not very sure that I can follow the logic of what you are saying about. It does not take into consideration the means by which the devices are distributed to children in the first place. You have made a commitment to the pupils of Scotland that they are going to have these devices. Irrespective of what the route of distribution is of the devices or the internet connections, that is the Scottish Government commitment. I have spoken in the chamber before and I have asked questions to the First Minister about that. Can you explain the logic behind your objection? I have given a number of points, but Mr Kerr encourages me to ignore the routes by which things have to happen. We have to work with local authorities and schools about the delivery of the proposition. Mr Mundell has just rehearsed the fact that we have 32 local authorities who do things in different ways, so not all local authorities go about the delivery of electronic access to education in exactly the same way. They have different means and methods and technologies that are utilised, and the amendment does not take that into account. That is the point that I am making. I will do, but I am anxious to make some more progress. I am slightly concerned with your argument, First Minister, because, if God forbid, we have to go through the same process again. We have to make sure that we do not leave any child behind in their education. We have already been through this. We understand the pitfalls and the issues that are required. Surely, in passing Stephen Kerr's amendment, it would encourage the Government to work with local authorities to make sure that there were routes to make sure that the devices get into the hands that are required. The Government does not need any encouragement by legislation to do that. The Government is getting on with doing it, and we have already accomplished a significant amount, as I have indicated. I am slightly more sympathy for the proposed amendment 142 on reporting on readiness for remote learning. However, it assumes that responsibility for implementing remote learning lies with Scottish ministers. Education authorities have the relevant statutory functions in relation to provision of education, including on contingency planning. I am also concerned that an annual information gathering exercise would create additional bureaucratic burden on the education system, distracting operators from their core responsibilities. As part of the continued recovery from the Covid pandemic, I would be happy to consider an approach that would review the education system's readiness for future remote learning should it be required. If members are willing to reject amendment 142 today, I will look into that further and return with more detail ahead of stage 3. I would be happy to engage with Mr Mundell on that point. Amendment 120 would effectively give local authorities a veto over closure of a wide range of educational establishments in their area, including universities, colleges and independent schools, located in the authorities area. However, that is the intended effect. It is therefore undesirable in managing a future public health emergency that may require a co-ordinated national response to protect those in educational establishments or the wider public. Amendment 121, and its word—of course, yes. Hi, I thank you for taking an intervention again. I just wonder on the principle when it comes to school-based, except the drafting issues, on the principle when it comes to school-based education provided by the local authority in line with our statutory duties. What role do you see them having? When you say that this would give them a veto, but effectively you are giving yourself the power to prevent them from carrying out their responsibility. There has to be some balance there, do you accept that? There is a balance struck, and it is the balance struck by existing legislation. Existing legislation gives the ability of a local authority to close a school where there is an immediate local public health issue. If Mr Mundell will let me complete my answer, it might help us to make some progress. A director of public health can provide a report to a local authority about a public health situation that requires to be addressed. That is existing law, and nobody is challenging that. The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that we, as a country, are equipped to handle wider threats. We have just gone through a pandemic that is a much wider threat than, for example, a localised norovirus outbreak or something like that. That is not really the point. You are taking away their power to choose to keep a school open. You are removing their saying that and therefore preventing them from fulfilling their statutory duty, albeit possibly on good grounds. Is it not right to give them a greater say or a greater role, perhaps possibly not a veto, but a greater say or a greater role in reaching that decision in their locality with the young people and schools that they know best? There may well be an argument for further dialogue, but one of the points that Mr Whittle made to me earlier on in committee is the importance of knowing where clear decision making can be undertaken so that we all know where we stand. Particularly in a public health emergency, in my view, and in my experience of the last couple of years, that is absolutely critical. Amendment 121, and its more general alternative amendment 131, requires ministers to establish an education advisory council after making regulations and to seek its views. I have sympathy with the intent behind this amendment to secure and statute a consultative mechanism for education stakeholders for the duration of a public health emergency. I respect the role and responsibility of local government in those matters, which they have highlighted to the committee in their support for amendment 121. As the committee knows, the Government worked very closely throughout the pandemic with the Covid-19 education recovery group, and we would expect to use similar arrangements in the future. However, I do not think that the composition of those amendments is appropriate today, but I would be willing to explore that further with a view to lodging an amendment at stage 3 that delivers a consultative mechanism in a more practicable way. Amendment 122 and 133 would prevent regulations swiftly addressing a public health emergency, resulting in either a 48-hour delay between regulations requiring school closures being made and coming into force, or a 7-day delay before compliance with regulations could be enforced. Amendment 123 requires that all regulations are accompanied by a statement on ministers' policy for continuity of educational provision. It is unnecessary, as any regulations would be expected to include provision relating to ensuring continuity of educational provision and to be accompanied by guidance, which would explain their purpose and how they support the continuity of education. Amendment 124 places a requirement on ministers to direct that weekly contact between children and young people in the educational establishment they normally tend to be facilitated during a period of closure. It is not clear whom ministers would direct and what the consequences of non-compliance with such a direction would be. The amendment also does not differentiate between the stage of education children or young people are in and is not limited to term time. It would be better to make clear and guidance or within regulations that such contact should be facilitated and give operators appropriate flexibility for different stages of education or needs and cover all users—for example, students. Amendment 125 and 126 would provide discretion despite regulations closing an educational establishment for an operator to conclude that a young person would be best supported by opening the establishment offer apparent to request that their child attend the establishment in person. Apart from the lack of quality regarding which age groups of child or young person's provision would apply to and whether they would apply to all types of educational establishments, those amendments would appear to undermine a national approach to restrictions on establishments where those were necessary and proportionate according to tests in the bill. In practice, it is likely that limited continued in-person provision might continue during a general restriction. For example, to support vulnerable children or children of key workers or for students in boarding school pupils who are unable to return home for good reason. Operators' legal duties towards their learners, pupils and students would continue alongside any requirements made in regulations. It is not helpful to provide further discretion to deviate from restrictions that have been put in place following all the tests established in the bill and would undermine tackling the public health emergency. I therefore encourage the committee not to support amendments 125 or 126. Amendment 128 is, in my view, unworkable. It is for Scottish ministers to make regulations relating to student accommodation that they consider necessary and proportionate in view of CMO advice. That cannot be wholly contingent on the actions or views of relevant managers of student accommodation who will be required to comply with such regulations. However, the regulations themselves can make provision to ensure that students are to be provided with necessary support. Throughout the Covid pandemic, we worked to partnership with stakeholders, including colleges, universities and student representatives, to provide guidance for the safe operation of and support of students staying in student accommodation. That would be our preferred approach in any future public health emergency. The Government will also work with stakeholders to explore what possible guidance would look like in advance of any future public health emergency. Amendment 132 would put in statute a requirement on ministers to seek voluntary arrangements with education providers before making any regulations under sections 8, 9 or 10 and would be unworkable. It would significantly delay bringing forward any regulations and would be undeliverable if even a small number of operators were unwilling to observe a voluntary arrangement. Where appropriate ministers would expect to use voluntary arrangements, it was on the basis that, during the Covid pandemic, advice or guidance rather than directions was given to all operators and other education authorities. However, a requirement to agree with all operators before using the powers would not be workable and, in some circumstances, statutory arrangements will remain the only and most appropriate option to provide legal certainty. Amendment 138 and 139 would add an additional requirement to review any regulations within seven days of a new member of the Scottish Government or junior minister assuming responsibility for the regulations. That does not properly reflect the principle of collective responsibility enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998 and reflected in the Scottish Ministerial Code and I therefore cannot support it. It also seems unnecessary given that regulations made under part 2 are made for a specific period and ministers are required to review the regulations every 21 days. An earlier review and, if appropriate, urgent revocation of regulations, as provided for an amendment 37, is possible at any time. Amendment 141, regarding relevant authorities using the professional judgment, is drafted in unclear terms and would add unhelpful doubt regarding their duties under the bill. Cwbured is giving relevant authorities significant scope to make different decisions from their establishment despite national advice, guidance or regulations. There is already scope for deviation from guidance or advice where necessary, for example, a relevant authority would continue to have other legal responsibilities and would be expected to balance those different duties. I accept the spirit of the amendment that central government should respect the professional judgment and knowledge of those responsible for educational establishments and nothing in the bill is intended to undermine that. Government's actions at all times must be reasonable. However, amendment 141 would not add to the clarity of operators on the action that they need to take and would hinder the bill's purpose of providing the basis for swift and decisive national action to tackle a public health emergency. Do you recognise, given that you support that principle, that there is something in putting that on the face of the bill, maybe in tighter wording or something that is a bit clearer that would just give a reassurance to those who have to do the more difficult bit? I know that it is difficult to make the big decision, but is it more difficult to do that on the ground? The principle that I would have to put in place in relation to any dialogue would be that any approach in that respect cannot undermine the clarity of decision making that we require in a pandemic, and so I am happy to explore that, but that would be the principle that I would be bringing to those conversations. Finally, amendment 143 would place another unacceptable delay on ministers effectively responding to an emergency by placing a duty on them to explore alternatives and mitigations to the regulations and to report on this consideration through a statement to Parliament to accompany the regulations. Therefore, cannot support amendments 141 or 143. I invite the committee to support amendments 36 to 39, and I would invite all of them and other members not to press their amendments in this group. Can I please ask Mr Mundell to wind up? There have been plenty of opportunities for intervention, so I appreciate it if you could wind up as succinctly as possible. Thank you. It is my intention to press all of the amendments, because I always think even with his offers to work on things later, if they appear on the face of the bill at the end of stage 2, it is easier to secure further concessions at stage 3. I heard several times through the cabinet secretary's contribution that some of these things could be done in regulation. We also heard about our preferred approach when talking about the Scottish Government, but it all comes back time and time again to the John Mason principle. This might not be the Government to do that, and some of those things would be better on the face of the bill. That would make sure that they were done for certain. In relation to many of the drafting issues, there is always a chance to fix those. That is how the process works. The question is that amendment 112 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, and there will be division. Those in favour, please raise your hands. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment 112, I will now use my casting vote as convener in order for the committee to reach a decision. I will vote against, therefore, the committee disagrees to amendment 112. Can I just be clear that we have agreed section 5? Thank you. Moving on to group number 3, which is education regulations advice from the chief medical officer. Can I call amendment 113 in the name of Oliver Mundell, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings? Oliver Mundell, to move amendment 113 and speak to all the amendments in the group, please. I will move the amendment and speak very briefly, because this comes back to that point of balance, and I think that we have covered that already. I am interested to hear how the Government responds to the amendment, but I do not think that there is a great deal more for me to say. Thank you, Mr Mundell. Can I move to the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment number 30 and any other amendments in the group? With regard to the Government amendments in this group, amendments 30 and 35 replace the cross-references within sections 8, 9 and 10 to section 6, which relate to the duty on relevant authorities to have regard to any advice of the chief medical officer with the term protecting public health. The effect of the amendments is to make clearer the subject matter of the advice on the CMO that ministers must have regard to before making any regulations under sections 8, 9 and 10. The current approach may have implied that the only advice to which ministers must have regard before making regulations under sections 8, 9 and 10 is advice given under section 6. The more specific reference advice about protecting public health will mean that a wider range of advice on the CMO may be considered before any regulations are made, including advice relating specifically to the measures to be used in such regulations. Those amendments will ensure that there is clarity about the nature of the advice that the CMO will provide to ministers to inform their decision to use the regulation making powers. The amendments strengthen those important provisions further and will help to ensure that the powers are fully and appropriately informed by advice from the CMO. As was debated in groups 1 and 2, CMO advice is also built into the gateway vote mechanism that would apply before the making of any educational continuity regulations. Turning to the other amendments in this group, amendment 113 adds to the requirements of section 6. Under section 6, the relevant authority must properly consider the advice of the CMO with an open mind and take it into account when carrying out their functions. CMO advice will be an important consideration alongside the rights and interests of the people whom a relevant authority serves, such as pupils or students. Other advice, including legal advice, advice on health and safety matters, advice on pedagogical issues and other matters. The potential effect of amendment 113 would be to set out in law the specific actions that relevant authorities must take when exercising their existing functions in relation to the duty to have regard to CMO advice. The same argument also applies in relation to amendment 116 and the changes that it proposes in relation to statutory guidance issued by ministers under section 7. Those measures would place a significant additional burden on relevant authorities and, via the ability to delay the implementation for up to 28 days, would negatively affect how swiftly mitigating actions advised by the CMO can be introduced. It could also lead to significant divergence in the actions taken by relevant authorities, allowing some to act swiftly in accordance with the advice of the CMO and guidance from ministers and others not. They would also place an additional burden on operators of educational establishments, ranging from local authorities to childminders and universities by requiring them to conduct consultation exercises in the midst of a public health crisis. I urge the committee not to support those amendments. For the reasons that I have given, convener, I invite the committee to support my amendments in this group, and I would ask Mr Mundell not to press his amendments. I do not have a great deal more to add again. It comes down to balance who knows a young person best. Even in a national response to a pandemic, there must be a recognition that those on the ground who make the day-to-day decisions are best placed. Often, to make those difficult balancing judgments, there is no-one else to make them. There is no-one else who can consider the individual circumstances of a young person to that level. The idea that the Government is best placed to take all those decisions on its own is one of the fundamental problems with the legislation. It has drafted and, in fact, was not the experience during the pandemic, so I think that those provisions are something similar that is needed on the face of the bill. The question is that amendment 113 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 113, please raise your hand. Those against. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment 113, I will now use my casting vote as convener in order that the committee can reach a decision and I will vote against amendment 113, therefore the committee disagrees to amendment 113. Can I call amendment 114, in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 113? Oliver Mundell, to move. We will move on to call amendment number 115, in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 112. Oliver Mundell, to move. We are not to move. The question is that amendment 115 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 115, please raise your hands. Those against amendment 115, please raise your hands. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment 115, I will now use my casting vote as convener in order for the committee to reach a decision. I will vote against amendment 115, therefore the committee disagrees to amendment 115. We have agreed section 6. Amendment 116, in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 113. Oliver Mundell, to move. We will now move on to call amendment 117, in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 112. Oliver Mundell, to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 117 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed and there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 117, please raise your hands. Those against amendment 117, please raise your hands. Thank you. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment 117, I will now use my casting vote as convener in order that the committee reaches a decision. I will vote against, therefore the committee disagrees to amendment 117. Just to clarify that we have agreed section 7, are we all agreed? That brings us to the end of group 3 and due to the break in the groupings, I think we will now suspend the consideration of the bill at this stage to allow members to attend general questions in the chamber. We are currently seeking approval from the bureau to meet at the same time as a chamber this evening because a member's business is going on until six o'clock and that will be agreed by the bureau hopefully and the decision will be taken at 2.30 and we will reconvene the meeting here in committee room number 6 at 5.30 which is after decision time. Please return to the committee room 4 at 5.30 so that we conclude our consideration of the bill without delay and I now suspend the meeting.