Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. That merits quite a lot of further discussion, but it would probably try the committee’s patience if we were to go too far down that route.

Perhaps the committee will look at whether we want to return to the issue another time.

I have one question for you both. Earlier, it was suggested that it would be logical for us to wait for the public inquiry to consider, debate and conclude before we consider what further legislation is required for future emergency situations. Would that be a wise thing to do? We will start off with Liam Fowley.

Megan Farr, you have given a pragmatic response and set out a potential way ahead that deals with the concerns that some of my colleagues, including Fergus Ewing, expressed earlier about the need to respond quickly in an emergency while making sure that we do not have permanent and disproportionate emergency powers.

There are two elements to this. There is the length of time that the powers are in place and there is the content of those powers. In an earlier session, we heard that leaders of various higher education institutions think that what is proposed is micromanaging far too much, that there should be broad principles and that they should be allowed to get on with implementing them. There is a debate about whether that is right, and then there is the debate about the length of time.

I would like you to comment on the content aspect, if that is okay. Are you saying that we should use the time now to debate the content and then have the legislation ready to roll if the event were to happen again? Are you saying that, perhaps rather than legislating now, we should debate now and get it ready?

I am curious about this issue. It surely does not matter who makes the final call, because the professional advice from the public health officials will be the same no matter who makes the decision. Why is it necessary to have multiple people legally entitled to close the school when the advice will be the same? The issue here is surely about ensuring that we have the right advice about how to proceed and clear authority and partnership to make it happen. David Belsey, why is it necessary to have multiple bodies making the call?

As a Liberal, I am really grateful that you have raised that issue. What has been the response from the Government to that proposal?

That probably brings us back to the sharing of good practice and collaborative working that Louise Goodlad was talking about. Is it a question of ensuring that headteachers, third sector organisations and everybody else involved share the understanding that, now that there is an opportunity to commit to longer-term funding, it needs to be seen perhaps as an example of best practice?

Sara, would you like to come in?

Thank you very much. I just want to finish with what, for me, summed up how PEF funding can work very well. When we visited the school in Dundee on Monday, we talked to a wee boy who described what he was like before and after the intervention. He said that, when he used to get things wrong in class, he would lose his temper, stamp his feet and be out in the corridor, shouting and bawling; now he just rubs the wrong thing out and starts again. I thought that that brilliantly summed up how that kind of intervention can work and make a real difference for young people. We just need more of that.

No—your answer had good precision. Do you want to come in next, Jim?

It was very good. Do you want to respond, Maureen?