Chamber and committees

Thank you for that answer. It strikes a chord with what I have heard in my constituency over the years from teachers and, in particular, headteachers, who complain that they spend too much time doing administration and that that detracts from their primary function of teaching.

However, Professor Muir, I do not see anyone coming up with a specific plan to debureaucratise the system. I note that, in your report, one of the opportunities that you identify for the new agency is to

“declutter and streamline the ‘middle ground’ in Scotland’s educational landscape”.

I also read something on, I think, page 47 or page 109 of the report. That sounds impressive but, if I am candid, I do not think that I quite made it through to the end. This is the point that interested me, so I stopped at page 47—I am sorry about that. The report quotes a primary teacher who said:

“We need less agencies, more support in classrooms, smaller class sizes and more prescriptive planning, not more agencies trying to justify how busy they are.”

I am impressed with the report and the obvious care for your task and for pupils, as Mr Marra said earlier, but where is the beef? Who is going to get to grips with the enormous bureaucracy that you have indemnified? Is not it incumbent on you, as the author of the report, to say how we will “declutter and streamline” and which policies should be suspended or removed?

We need somebody to lead the task of getting teachers back to teaching and away from administration, but is that too much to ask? Is it an unfair ask, Professor Muir? I am afraid that just expressing it as an aspiration does not cut the mustard. I say that with 13 years of ministerial experience in which frustration was an emotion that I suffered daily when coming up against a very large bureaucracy that, sometimes, appeared to impede the purposes that we are here to advance.

I have a final reflection, although I note that I am an outsider to the education world and you are insider experts—so who am I to opine when, arguably, I do not have the factual knowledge?

You have said that we want to

“declutter and streamline the ‘middle ground’”.

I do not quite know whether there is a plan for how that could be done, other than by the inspectorate identifying things to be culled and made more efficient, as Professor Donaldson just said. Would it not be an idea to ask a group of headteachers to say what should be dispensed with? Has that been tried? We could ask, say, five headteachers from primary and secondary schools around the country what they would do to simplify and declutter the middle ground.

In my experience, the people who do the work know what is wrong. With all respect, professors and MSPs, who are not in the classrooms and schools, often do not know what is going on. Whatever the walk of life, the people who do the work know what does not work, yet they are often the last people to be asked for their opinions. I put that to you. Maybe it is a daft-laddie suggestion, but could you add that to your recommendations, Professor Muir?

I welcome that.

I have one further brief supplementary question. In relation to how universities and colleges would proceed with their decision-making powers if they had a say over how emergency powers were to be constructed, Mr Sim said:

“student and staff representatives would ... be an important part of any structure ... put in place to address a further emergency.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 2 March 2022; c 25.]

If that were the case, is it not pretty obvious that all the consultation that Mr Sim said would take place in relation to decisions that universities and colleges would like to make about the content of our emergency powers would take time? Consultation takes time. To consult students and staff representatives would be, as Mr Sim said, essential—a sine qua non of the exercise of their role. However, doing all that would mean that taking decisions would take several weeks or much longer. Of course, the virus could spread and people’s lives could be put at risk during that time. Have not the distinguished academics hoisted themselves with their own petard by the evidence that they gave last week?

I had not planned to come in, but I feel that it is important to do so because colleagues have expressed the view that there is a consensus against providing the powers that the bill would confer. Although I respect that, I strongly dispute it and think that we need to redress that view.

Is it not the case, cabinet secretary, that if you fail to get the emergency powers that you are seeking to get in the bill and there is a further pandemic, we might find that we do not possess the powers that are required to protect public health and, conceivably, save lives? That would be the biggest failure of all.

I put that point in all seriousness, cognisant of the fact that this pandemic has thrown up huge challenges. There is no guarantee at all that further pandemics will throw up the same challenges. Therefore, ministers and Governments must create the widest possible range of powers in order to be sure that, in a future pandemic, we will have the necessary powers to act to save human life. Is that not a reasonable point and one that underlies the whole rationale for the bill?

Last week, I questioned Alastair Sim and Paul Little on their objections relating to the Government’s powers under section 8(5)(b) to (k) being too granular. The argument that I put to them was that, if there is a future pandemic, the Government needs to be able to act swiftly, and that delays even of a day or so could be critical in relation to stemming the flow and spread of a future virus, so there might not be time for consultation and for universities and colleges to go through their decision-making processes.

Does the cabinet secretary have any comments on that? Does she feel that colleges and universities have given any clear examples of what they are concerned about? I have no wish to misrepresent them, but the only example that was given in evidence was that by Mr Sim about podiatrists. I was a bit perplexed as to why podiatrists had made an unexpected debut in the issues relating to education.

Following on from our discussion about the general issue of the nature and extent of the emergency powers and the rationale for them, I want to raise with the cabinet secretary the matters that are covered in paragraphs 55 to 65 of the policy memorandum and proposed new sections 86B(1) and 86C(1) of the 2008 act, as inserted by section 1 of the bill.

As I understand it, there needs to be, and there will be placed on the Scottish Government, in relation to the use of emergency powers, a new higher test or barrier called the proportionality test, which must be considered before any restrictions may be imposed by regulations. It goes beyond

“a significant risk to public health”,

which is the condition to be met by health boards. In other words, a protective barrier will be introduced by the bill specifically to address some of the concerns that you and Opposition members have expressed.

Before the powers in the bill can be exercised, a whole range of things will need to be taken into account, and the Government will need to demonstrate that they have been taken into account—namely, the severity of the disease; the transmissibility of infection; the size of the exposed population; the susceptibility of the exposed population to infection; the availability of diagnostic tests, treatments and vaccinations; and the impact on critical services.

Does the cabinet secretary wish to expand on that? Am I right in postulating that that is an additional safeguard that is designed to provide citizens in Scotland with the assurance that the Government will act only if it is necessary and proportionate in the circumstances?

I seek clarification from the minister about a point that was raised with us by the Scottish Private Nurseries Association, which represents private nurseries and those that operate in the voluntary and third sectors—that is, nurseries run by charities.

The SPNA seeks clarification on whether the benefits of the provision—the waiver of disclosure fees and of liability to pay certain fees—applies to nurseries that are in private or third sector ownership, as well as to local authority nurseries. If the principle is that the disclosure fee should not be payable, I assume that that would apply across the board.

We received the letter from the SPNA only in the past day or so, or we could have raised the matter with the minister before. It would be helpful if clarification could be provided on that point.

Thank you, convener and members, for your time. The cross-party group on the wood panel industry will consider the interests of the sector, which is very important to the economy of Scotland. There are three main wood panel manufacturers in the United Kingdom—namely, Norbord, Egger and Kronospan. Those three companies are the constituent members of the Wood Panel Industries Federation and they operate across six sites located in England, Scotland and Wales. Significantly, three of those sites are in Scotland: Norbord has sites near Inverness and at Cowie, and Egger has a site at Barony.

The member companies operate a business-to-business interface supplying some of the UK’s biggest brands, including B&Q, Jewson, Wickes and Howdens, to name but a few. Manufactured wood-based and panel products such as chipboard, oriented strand board and medium density fibreboard can be identified in virtually every home, office and shop, and they are extensively used in the construction, furniture making, packaging and transportation industries.

The wood panel industry makes a significant contribution to the UK economy and is disproportionately important to Scotland, due to half of the industry being located here. Wood panel manufacturers play an important role in the Scottish economy, helping to support regional employment and local supply chains. In 2018, the average salary of those employed in the industry was £36,235 and the industry has a strong track record of investing in local communities—through successful apprenticeship schemes, for example.

Forestry investment is key to ensuring the sustainable growth of the industry. The UK Government has set a target for planting 30,000 hectares per annum by 2024, with England committed to delivering 7,000 hectares and Wales expecting to deliver up to 4,000 hectares per annum. Scotland is very much leading the way in terms of ambition with our target to plant 18,000 hectares per annum.

One of the key purposes of the group will be to discuss and explore the wood security challenge and to encourage England and Wales to raise their ambitions for tree planting. The sector is working hard to play its role in contributing to net zero aims through the decarbonising of manufacturing processes and the role of wood panelling products in carbon sequestration. That will be another key area for the group to examine.

The group intends to work closely with the Wood Panel Industries Federation to gain a detailed understanding of the challenges that are facing the sector. The WPIF will act as the group’s secretariat, ensuring a clear link with industry partners. At the proposed group’s initial meeting, there was cross-party attendance from members across Scotland. Alongside me as proposed convener, we have elected two proposed deputy conveners—namely, Stephen Kerr MSP from the Conservatives and Colin Smyth MSP from Labour.

The next step for the group will be to agree our policy priorities. We will do that in consultation with the WPIF. Our intention is to draw up policy recommendations for the Scottish Government to inform our engagement with Scottish Government ministers. At Westminster, there is already an all-party parliamentary group for the wood panel industry and we will look for opportunities to work with it to influence the UK Government as well.

Many thanks for the opportunity to set out that brief description of this very important industry to Scotland.

We will look at the issue from the perspective of the industry, which is that it requires a continuous and reliable supply of raw material, namely timber of a certain quality.

The reason why we have wood panel manufacturing plants in Scotland is that they are located close to large areas of afforestation of commercial species. I was formerly the minister with responsibility for forestry so I know that, in consideration of applications for consent to plant trees, there is a presumption that prime arable land should not be used for tree planting. That issue is a matter for the relevant Scottish Government ministers.

There is ample scope in Scotland for more afforestation. Plainly, the forestry standards that were developed in the mid-1990s are applicable in order to prevent the mistakes that were made in the 1980s, when trees were planted in heavy peat on very steep land that was inaccessible for felling or maintaining. The system of ensuring that the right tree is planted in the right place is a sound, mature and developed one in Scotland.

The group will look closely at how, by working together with farmers, crofters, land managers, landowners, agents, contractors, nurseries and the colleges, we can ensure that targets are met. That is important, because the wood panel industry will continue to grow only if it has a continuous and steady supply of commercial species timber. If it continues to grow, we can increasingly build new houses from wood rather than concrete or brick. I am no expert, but that must be good news for net zero and environmental aims, and it must be something that many people in Scotland want to happen. We are a wee bit further ahead than other countries in the use of wood for house construction.

Initially, our main focus will be on how the Scottish Government can best meet its target of 18,000 hectares and, within that, ensure that there is sufficient supply of commercial species to continue to provide the feedstock for this important sector of the economy.

I am sure that the businesses that are involved will be grateful for Tess White’s interest, and I hope that she and other members will consider joining the group. We would obviously like more people to come along. The wood panel industry is a modern success story in Scotland and it is therefore fitting that it should be the subject of more detailed parliamentary work, with the object of enabling it to achieve even more.

The industry has been doing pretty well. There has been substantial investment in the industry. For example, the Norbord plant, which is in my constituency, is one of the most modern in Europe and is able to operate very efficiently due to the modern equipment that has recently been installed there, with an investment well in excess of £100 million.

My understanding is that the industry has been doing fairly well of late. The risk of continuing high energy costs is a challenge, as it is a fairly energy-intensive exercise; labour shortages in some areas are a challenge for many employers, as members will appreciate; and, on a wider macro level, the companies do business primarily in the UK but they also have an interest in purchasing materials and doing business with mainland Europe and, as we all know, there is currently considerable uncertainty in relation to the geopolitical situation there.