���˿���

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 Covid-19 pandemic took us and everybody else by surprise, which will also be the case for any future pandemic. I recognise and want to thank all the institutions represented today, and local government, for the their valuable work during the pandemic. I am perfectly sure that the Scottish Government will always continue to use a partnership approach as a central way of operating. I do not think that anyone would dispute that.

There seems to be an elephant in the room, however, the presence of which has been so far ignored. In a pandemic there is a need for speed. Although Mr Edward is quite correct that it would be desirable if we could pass the bill after Lady Poole’s inquiry findings are known, as far as I know there is no time limit on the inquiry and it may well be a long time before we reach that stage.

It seems to me that, as democrats, we all want consultation and participation, but we must also recognise that in a pandemic there is a need for speed, and that delay of even a few days can be critical. I put it particularly to Mr Sim and Mr Little that, even if there is substance to some of their arguments—I will be interested to hear what the cabinet secretary says about the granular detail and why the powers are necessary—nonetheless, in principle, if Government cannot act quickly, as it can in England where it already has such powers and has had them for 10 years, surely that must carry with it a very serious risk to public health that none of us should be willing to thole, permit or accept.

With respect, how long will that take? I am advised—it is not a world with which I am familiar—that the decision-making process at universities can be swift—

—but we have seen very serious criticism of both the Scottish Government and the Westminster Government for acting too slowly. Whether those criticisms are well founded or not, time will tell; the inquiry will look into that. I think, however, that many people suspect that the right decisions were taken, but not quickly enough. Are you not proposing a system that will inevitably lead to delay? The Scottish Government process would involve making decisions in close consultation with your member universities, and you would then overlay a college or university consultation process. Even if you did that in a week, surely that would be too late, and that is the whole point.

With respect, what would happen if there were a disagreement? In a pandemic there has to be emergency action. At the end of the day, if the Government did not have power to do something, as Mr Greer pointed out, you could end up in the courts and by that time it would all be too late and thousands more people would have the virus. With respect, although your argument is well intentioned and no doubt discussions can be had about the granular detail—in my experience in Government, officials constantly worked closely with those affected, as I think that you have indicated yourself—surely you must accept, as a point of principle, that the buck stops with the Government. If it does not have the powers, it could end up in a situation in which it could not take the action necessary, on the basis of the public health evidence, to protect public health in Scotland.

Convener, I do not want to interrupt, but I am aware from previous work with Paul Little of the good work that he does in his college; I applaud him for that and I value that. However, with respect, that is not what we are here to talk about. It is very important, but it is not the question that I asked. Behind you, to your left, there is a plaque, which I assume is yours, which has the Latin motto “Semper Paratus”, which as I understand it means “Always Ready”. My point is that Governments must be always ready and unless they have emergency powers they cannot act swiftly.

That is the point. We will not be semper paratus. We will be unprepared and without the powers that may be necessary because, in a future pandemic, the problems that we have may be slightly or entirely different from the problems that we face in the Covid pandemic. History does not repeat itself precisely in many respects, so surely we need to be ready for the future. That is what I asked. It was not about the other problems that you face. I am not in any way denigrating your raising them, but they are not relevant to today. With respect, I think that both you and Mr Sim have protested too much and have not accepted the absolute fundamental principle that Governments—this is the case with the UK Government; presumably you would support that, convener—have to be able to act swiftly.

Does Professor Little not accept that Governments must have powers to act swiftly and it is not possible to know in advance precisely what action must be taken? At the end of the day, it must be the Government that has the powers, otherwise we are not able to protect public health.

I thank the witnesses for their evidence and for what they do. Over the years, I have had occasion to work with some of the charities that are giving evidence today, and I recognise what Mr Wallace said earlier—that what they do is, in many ways, not instead of but complementary, additional or supplementary to what the state does through its agencies. It often does that work in a different way, and it is not necessarily all about money. I just wanted to make that point. I do not think that we should start from the premise that, if we had a perfect social work department, a perfect state and perfect schools, we would not need the third sector. I think that, actually, we need the third sector in addition. It is easy to get sidetracked by regarding money as the proxy for everything, but it is not that.

Over the years, I have been struck by the position of many charities—even leading ones such as Aberlour, Barnardo’s and the Prince’s Trust. As I understand it, they all have various funding streams, including funding from the state, the private sector and philanthropic donations. All of those are important, but each of the charities has certain funding from the state. The impression that I get is that many charities spend as much time chasing the money, which is granted on a very short-term basis from year to year, as they spend performing their function, which is to provide support—in this case, to the most needy.

I have often thought that, if the funding was guaranteed on a three or four-year basis, that would alleviate the pressures on major charities—or, really, on all charities—quite considerably. Of course, some might lose funding altogether, which is, I am afraid, just something that will happen in life.

I am sorry that my question has been a wee bit long winded, but have I analysed that in a fair way? Do people in the charities spend a lot of time chasing the funding rather than providing the services for young people that they get up in the morning to provide—in this instance, to tackle the hardship of poverty?

I am impressed by the passion with which you espouse your views. Instinctively, I am supportive of the idea of headteachers having more discretion but, when we get down to specifics, Professor Ainscow, many things are fixed, such as salaries. I presume that you do not think that headteachers should start to pay some teachers more or less than they are paid per the tariff. There is so much of the budget that is fixed—building repairs, rates, heat, lighting and insurance, for example. I was interested in whether there were any specifics.

When I speak to constituents about education, they do not talk in that language at all. The language and vocabulary that we use is not used out of the Holyrood bubble or system. They say, “I wish children could get musical instruction or a musical instrument,” or, “I wish that they could get more tutoring.” Those matters were referred to earlier in the meeting and perhaps we have not explored them enough. My constituents may also say, “Maybe children should learn how to touch type,” which is mandatory in Holland. That is still seen as a marginal skill for the 20th century, but it is now essential for the 21st century. I have no idea why the educational establishment has not homed in on that. They could say, “I would like more business people to come into schools to explain to our kids what they actually do.” Those are the things that I think my constituents would mention, but they have not been mentioned this morning. That is not a criticism of anybody; it is just a general observation from somebody who, unlike my colleague and friend Kaukab Stewart, has not really been involved since they left school, which was five decades ago or thereabouts.

Professor Ainscow, I want to challenge you on a specific point. I am not persuaded that there is an evidential basis for your contention that headteachers and teachers do not focus on individual children. My impression is that they do their best to do that and, by and large, they manage to do that.

I am not sure whether you meant to assert that there is a general failure across the board to identify, or even communicate with, large numbers of pupils in schools. I must admit that I find that a very difficult contention and one that does not square with my experience of going to what used to be called prizegivings, which I am sure are called something else now. The children at Grantown grammar school have a huge array of achievements—they seem to be happy and well known to their teachers, almost as friends. I am afraid that I do not recognise the single example that you gave as being evidence based, which I think was the point that you were making.

The late songwriter Johnny Mercer wrote a song that is still sung that said:

“Accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative”.

I mention it because, perhaps unintentionally, there is a risk in discussions such as the one that we are having that we run into doing the converse: that we eliminate the positive and accentuate the negative. I hope that we all recognise—I expect that we do—that, every day, our teachers work hard and put effort, enthusiasm and expertise into the job that they do. I have been an MSP for 22 years and I receive vanishingly few complaints about our teachers. It is correct to put that on record—not that the discussion has been unduly negative.

I also put on record the fact that the Scottish Government is, I understand, putting in £215 million of Scottish attainment challenge funding this year as well as protecting free tuition for higher education. That has not been mentioned, but it is key to addressing the problems of the poverty-related attainment gap.

The discussion has been interesting, but it tends to be of a general nature. There are lots of abstract nouns, but it is more difficult to get concrete actions. That is perhaps understandable but, following Mr Rennie’s line of questioning, I will try to drill down. Will Professor Ainscow say exactly what he meant when he said that headteachers require control over their budgets? Will he give me three examples of what headteachers might do in practice to make things better and tackle the poverty-related attainment gap?