Chamber and committees

That is helpful. For some individuals who might be impacted, it would be distressing for their claims to be revisited for what might, in their mind, be relatively minor errors. I understand that the Scottish Government and Redress Scotland have to satisfy themselves that things have been done properly, but a survivor might have a somewhat higher threshold with regard to errors, given that they would have to re-engage with the process. I simply ask that we be mindful of that.

How does that marry with the point that has been raised in the debate that these devices have been made available to other parts of society and the economy? Why are schools any less deserving?

Is the cabinet secretary confident that, where stubbornly high levels have been identified, action has been taken locally? Has she been reassured?

I am grateful to my Labour colleague Michael Marra for bringing this debate to the chamber and giving Parliament the time to discuss the issue. We will support the Labour motion at decision time, because we think that it sends a strong message to the Scottish National Party Government that it is time for it to step up and do more.

I read the cabinet secretary’s amendment carefully and I have listened carefully to what she has said so far. Although I recognise that some action has been taken and that ventilation is only one measure among many mitigations, we cannot support an attempt to downplay the on-going challenges that our schools and, therefore, our teachers, support staff and pupils are facing. I did not find the cabinet secretary’s response to my intervention particularly reassuring. If we are not even able to say that the most basic of remedial actions have been taken and that the Government has followed up on them, it does not seem as if we are really on top of the problem.

I agree that keeping windows open where possible is important but, for many of our smaller schools—including many of the schools in my constituency—that also means ensuring that their heating systems are up to scratch and that local authorities and schools are supported with the considerable additional heating costs that they are likely to incur.

Does Jim Fairlie agree that this is one of those balances? This is an extra measure of protection and an extra resource that we can provide to schools. Is that not a good thing?

Will the member give way?

How does Kaukab Stewart explain to my constituents in Dumfries who are sat right now in the high school why, when her Government has been in power for 14 years, that building is not wind and watertight? Surely, that is not acceptable.

I agree with that point. The sad thing, which I was going to come to later, is that we should not be in that position this year, either. I am not a “Game of Thrones” fan, but I know that other people have been caught out when they have said, “Winter is coming.” However, that is true—it is coming, and we have known for a long time that we were going to be back in this situation, and the events of the past week have shown that, sadly, many of the challenges around Covid-19 are not going to disappear even if we get on top of case numbers and drive forward the vaccination programme.

In that light, it would be sensible to put in place some of the measures that we are discussing as a precaution, even if we think that, on balance, we might be in a better place next winter. Our young people deserve better. Their education has been disrupted and we owe them an attempt to get the basics right, which means delivering the most proportionate and most straightforward measures. That is something that every party in this Parliament should be able to get behind. It might not be the total solution and it might not provide all the answers, but it is certainly worth giving it a try. If it provides parents, pupils and teachers with some reassurance, it would be money well spent and an investment worth making.

My understanding of the advice is that no one has said that those measures would not be an improvement; they have said that they are not the full answer. There is scientific evidence for their efficacy and, therefore, we are talking about an addition to what is happening—it is a belt-and-braces approach. That is better than just telling schools that all that they can do is open the window, when we know that there are spaces in our schools that are badly ventilated. In many other areas of our society and economy, improved mechanical ventilation forms part of the response not just to Covid but to the challenge of generally improving air quality. The ideas are worth looking at again.

This debate highlights many of the worst qualities of the SNP Government. It is a Government that makes announcements and believes that that is the job done, that fails to understand the magnitude of the issue, that offloads responsibility and blame on to local government and that is unwilling to admit when its policies have not worked. It is a Government that is not willing to listen to ideas from elsewhere in the chamber.

I want to go back to Willie Rennie’s first line of questioning. I listened to Jim Wallace from Aberlour on the radio the other morning. I do not want to misquote him but, in effect, he said that there should be more of a role for the third sector. I am enthusiastic about having more teachers and support staff in schools, but the question is whether money that is designated for tackling poverty should be used just to bring in more teachers. Given the accountability structures, local authorities have quite a big say in how that money is spent and, in some cases, they are directing headteachers. Is that the right approach? Are we accessing the right expertise? Is there really partnership working, or could the money be distributed differently?