Seòmar agus comataidhean

The idea that Fergus Ewing is expounding that the pandemic was not predicted is completely wrong. Pandemics were predicted globally by many experts. They are high on risk registers internationally. We had pandemic planning activity in Scotland that was ignored by the Scottish Government and when the review that is being undertaken reports, we will get a better idea of that.

John Edward mentioned the comparison with England. Are the witnesses aware of any other international comparisons that we might look at where the response was better? I am fairly critical of the Government response in England, Wales and Scotland. Is there an international example of a legislative framework for emergency response that you are aware of that the committee and the Parliament should look at? Is there a better framework that will help us get the response correct next time?

I will come to Megan Farr on that issue in a moment.

The Scottish Government’s policy is that every child should have access to a digital device and the connectivity to enable its use, but I believe that that will not be provided until the end of this session of Parliament. Would the lack of provision post a real risk were there to be another mutation that lead to further school closures?

Does Megan Farr have any comment?

I have a lot of sympathy with all the contributions so far. In terms of the core of what Mr Mundell says, I think that the early pre-amendment drafts should be published and they should absolutely be in the public domain—we should be able to have a look at them.

I also agree with all the other comments about how the committee should work: we want to work together collegiately. However, we need to find a way to tell the Government that we want to see those publications and see them quickly, and that we want to be able to understand the process of amendment and the influences brought to bear on the publications. How we do that is the question, but if we can come to a resolution on that, we want to be pretty clear that we should see those publications as soon as possible.

I turn to Jim Wallace. There is now a reliance on the work that you have all described. It is important that that work is being done, because the social work services that previously intervened no longer exist. Is that correct?

What Louise Goodlad said about the transparency of the money is key, and we can come back to that. An organisation might not understand where the money is coming from, and I have to say that, at times, it is also difficult for us to tell. I see colleagues nodding their heads. It would be a positive thing to understand that.

My question relates to the additionality that the third sector brings. I have had representations from third sector providers about the amount of resource that they bring to the table on top of commissioned work. Maureen McAteer, have you done any research or work on the percentage value that you bring in on top of the commissioned work that you do?

I will put to Jim Wallace from Aberlour a variation of the same question, on the additional resource that your organisation might bring. It has been reported to me in my home city of Dundee that the figures from a third sector organisation—those that are centrally held—could be up to 50 or 60 per cent on a contract. Ms McAteer provides a representation of that. On a larger contract, that is easier—I understand that—but do you feel that Aberlour brings that additional benefit?

I and some other committee members were privileged to visit some of your workers in Dundee earlier this week, and we heard about some of the work that they do. In that respect, I found your comment about 30 or so years’ experience in social work useful, because my understanding of that conversation was that that kind of work used to be done by social workers. Is it fair to say that?

I hear what you say loud and clear. I have to say that I was hugely impressed by the workers whom we met earlier in the week, and I give all credit to your organisation for the work that they are doing. The tone of my question was not critical. We are trying to understand what has happened with the money and what it has replaced. Has there been genuine additionality? Is new activity happening as a result, or are we seeing money that had been in the public sector being given a role elsewhere? I am not casting aspersions on how things are being performed at the moment. It is important for us to understand whether more is being done or whether things are being done differently.

Finally, I want to ask about the precariousness of funding. Your written submission makes some comment on that, and I know that that is a core issue for local authorities and headteachers in seeking to sustain engagement over a long period of time. Although the amount of money has been reduced this year, the Scottish Government has given a guarantee in respect of that type of activity over the coming years to the end of this parliamentary session. However, the challenge is that the money is set against the local government budget. What will happen if the interventions that we are talking about are taken out and the money has to be used to plug gaps? I took from the written submissions—from Barnardo’s Scotland’s submission in particular—that that is a challenge and that we have to see the issue in the context of local government budgets. Is that fair to say?

Perhaps Maureen McAteer can start off. I will then come to Jim Wallace.

On Professor Ainscow’s point about quick fixes and timescales, I note that the attainment challenge started in 2016 and we have spent £1 billion of taxpayers’ money on it. When would you expect to see discernible progress? After all, six years does not really seem like a quick fix—it is the entirety of a child’s secondary education.