Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that committee members were looking at one another to see who was going to comment first. I do not know whether I drew the short straw.

I thank the Deputy Presiding Officer and the Conveners Group for writing to us to raise the issue, which is important. As someone who was previously a member of the Conveners Group, I know that the conveners of the Parliament’s committees offer a very well-considered and well-rounded view, so we must take seriously their desire for continuity of committee membership, including substitutes.

That said, I can see that the Conveners Group is trying to be helpful. It acknowledges that, during the pandemic—which, sadly, is not quite over yet—significant flexibility was required. In fact, complete flexibility was absolutely necessary. For the time being, that flexibility continues, but at some point it will have to draw to a close or be formalised in a way that is more in keeping with the continuity that conveners seek, by having two named substitutes. Therefore, I think that we should give serious consideration to that suggestion.

I would be very interested to find out what the Parliamentary Bureau’s thoughts are in relation to the Conveners Group’s suggestion, which I am very open to, and I would like to find out why the bureau thinks that it might be beneficial to have such open-ended flexibility embedded in parliamentary practices. I am not so sure that that is required, but it is, of course, the job of members of this committee to look at the evidence and to come to a well-considered and well-rounded view. I think that we need a wee bit more information before we can do that.

Good morning to both witnesses. Your evidence so far has been really helpful.

An area in which there is probably broad consensus is the recommendations around the reform of inspections. I know that colleagues will have some general questions on that, but I will look specifically at reform of the inspections process in early learning and childcare. It is widely agreed that that sector is disproportionately assessed and that the inspection work could be far more efficient. Professor Muir recommended that there should be a shared inspections framework between the new inspectorate body and the Care Inspectorate. Given the fact that there are more than 200,000 young people in more than 8,000 registered early learning and childcare services in Scotland, it is obvious how the bureaucracy of assessment and inspection could be burdensome.

I have a very specific question on that. Education Scotland says on its website that it already has examples of stand-alone childcare facilities that have a Care Inspectorate representative on their inspection team from time to time. I am keen to know what a shared inspection framework would look like and whether the practice would be to inspect once and comprehensively rather than return again and again to early years settings.

That is helpful. I have a relatively brief—I hope—follow-up question. What came through strongly in the report was your surprise that the Care Inspectorate produced its own revised framework when it was working collaboratively with Education Scotland. I will leave the question of why that would be the case sitting there.

You seem to be quite clear about the need for a shared, supportive inspection framework that would be combined and integrated. It would involve a seamless, inspect-once process, so the skills mix would have to be appropriate. You said that you would probably favour a new inspectorate body on the education side of things leading on that. You also acknowledged the need for legislative change because there are statutory duties in relation to inspections of early learning and childcare settings. That is helpful. My understanding is that the Government will bring forward its proposals in that respect before the summer.

Would it be possible to leave that open? As long as a lead agency—be it the new education inspectorate or the Care Inspectorate—does a combined inspection, with a multidisciplinary team with the appropriate skills mix going into an establishment, could there be a joint statutory duty in that regard? I think that practitioners will not care whether it is the new education inspectorate or the Care Inspectorate, but they will want it to be proportionate, supportive and not bureaucratic. Do you have any additional thoughts on that or on the Scottish Government’s timescale, details of which are likely to emerge before the summer?

Would a summer timescale be reasonable?

I have a brief comment to make. I nearly asked Mr O’Kane about this, but I did not think that it would be required. However, I would like to put on record the fact that I think that the cross-party group could be of good service to the committees of the Parliament as well. I sit on the Education, Children and Young People Committee, and we will clearly have a scrutiny role in relation to the delivery of the Promise, but we will not always be able to give that as much time as we would like to. I think that the work of the cross-party group could certainly complement the work of the main committees of the Parliament in relation to their responsibility for ensuring that we deliver on the Promise. In that context, it is very welcome that this cross-party group is, hopefully, going to be established.

Perhaps we can decide that in private when we discuss the evidence rather than your own personal views, convener.

I hope that we will discuss that later, convener.

This has been a really interesting line of questioning. There is obviously a debate over whether the powers should be permanent but used only in extremis, when there are major public health emergencies.

Separate to that, when I asked the representatives from Universities Scotland and Colleges Scotland last week about the issues with regard to the current suite of powers for dealing with the coronavirus pandemic, Alastair Sim from Universities Scotland said that the bill mirrors the powers in the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020 in many respects. I asked Mr Sim what criticisms he had made at the time when those 2020 powers were being considered—powers that I accept never had to be used, because of the great partnership working. He did not really say anything about that, but he did say:

“If the Government had reached for those emergency powers, it might have found them quite problematic to use”.—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 2 March 2022; c 13.]

Were you aware of any concerns from Universities Scotland at that time? Other than the current statement from Alastair Sim on Universities Scotland’s position, are you aware of any issues that Universities Scotland has had since then about the current suite of powers?

Thank you. That was very helpful.

Thank you. I should say that Mr Sim pointed out that he had only four sitting days in which to respond on the specifics of the emergency powers. The point was more about the issues that have been raised since the 2020 act was passed.

When I asked Mr Little from Colleges Scotland about the issue, he did not raise concerns about specifics but he said:

“We raised concerns about the throughput of officials who had to produce the legislation.”

I think that his point was about officials’ workload. He then said that there was a

“real danger of getting a weekly or even daily diktat”.—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 2 March 2022; c 15.]

I was surprised by that comment—I did not think that such a position was reasonable. Of course, it is not my position to take, but, on reflection, I think that I can put Paul Little’s comment to you, cabinet secretary, so that you can reply to it. What reassurance can you offer that, in taking the powers, the Government has no intention of making a weekly or daily diktat?