Official Report 933KB pdf
Good morning, and welcome to the 30th meeting in 2025 of the Education, Children and Young People Committee.
The first item of business is evidence on the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, Jenny Gilruth is supported by Scottish Government officials Alison Taylor, interim director for learning; Stella Smith, head of supporting learners policy unit; Robert Eckhart, supporting learners policy team leader; and Nico McKenzie-Juetten, head of school education branch, legal directorate. Welcome to you all.
I understand that the cabinet secretary would like to make an opening statement. Over to you, cabinet secretary.
Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to give evidence on Daniel Johnson’s member’s bill and the important issues that it covers.
First, I put on record my thanks to Mr Johnson and his staff for the collegiate approach that they have taken in engaging with the Government over some time on his legislative proposals.
As the committee knows, the legislation does not sit in isolation; rather, it builds on our non-statutory guidance on physical intervention in schools, which was published in November last year. The guidance is part of our “Included, engaged and involved” series that aims to support positive relationships and behaviour in our classrooms. Its non-statutory status mirrors the approach that we have taken to guidance that is delivered as part of our relationships and behaviour in schools national action plan, including our guidance on risk assessments and on promoting positive, inclusive and safe school environments, which we published in June.
The physical intervention guidance was developed with extensive input from many of the witnesses who have provided evidence to the committee, including representatives from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, teachers and other education staff, local government, teaching unions and, of course, parents, who have been instrumental in bringing the bill before Parliament.
Although considerable work has been undertaken to implement the guidance, it is still less than a year old. Full implementation is still at an early stage, and it will take time. Nonetheless, we committed to a one-year review of the guidance and, regardless of the bill’s passage, that work will begin shortly. The review will, of course, be informed by the evidence that is provided of situations in which restraint or seclusion has been used in inappropriate ways. However, it will also consider examples in which the diligence of teachers has created learning environments where children with additional support needs can thrive and are supported without recourse to restraint or seclusion.
The bill presents another opportunity to take further steps in making clear our expectations on the use of restraint and seclusion. We have worked carefully and collaboratively with partners to support our overall aims of protecting children by minimising the use of restraint and seclusion.
I recognise that this sensitive issue requires a measured and proportionate response. I have met Beth Morrison and heard her distressing account of her son Calum’s restraint back in 2010. I have also met Kate Sanger, and I know that the committee has heard about the traumatic effect that seclusion had on her daughter, Laura. Let me be clear that no family should have to experience that. I have also met the teaching trade unions on the issue, and I have appreciated their contributions.
I should be clear that the practices of restraint are not used in most of Scotland’s schools, and it is not a practice that most classroom teachers are trained in. As our physical intervention guidance sets out, and as the committee has heard, the vast majority of our education workforce does not need to be trained in the use of restraint. On those rare occasions when it is deemed necessary, it is important that properly trained staff feel confident in using it, supported by the detailed advice and safeguards that should be followed, as outlined in our guidance on physical intervention.
Having carefully considered the contents of Mr Johnson’s bill, and as I set out in my letter to committee, the Government will support the general principles of the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.
I met Mr Johnson recently and we have agreed to work collaboratively on the bill to ensure that it delivers on its intended purpose. As the committee has heard, further work will be required in order to fully understand the costs that would be involved in its implementation. I have also set out a number of aspects on which amendments might be required, including on definitions and on national reporting. Although the Scottish Government is supportive of the bill, it is, of course, a member’s bill, and Mr Johnson retains responsibility for its passage through Parliament.
I am happy to take any questions from members.
Thank you very much for that opening statement, cabinet secretary.
You rightly mentioned Beth Morrison and the work that she has done on behalf of her son Calum, and Kate Sanger and the work that she has done on behalf of her daughter Laura. However, those are not new incidents; they did not happen recently. Why have we reached the stage of having a member’s bill, when parents have been campaigning for years, including through petitions to this Parliament, seeking the Government to do something? Although it is welcome that the Government supports the bill, why has the Government not done more on the issue before now?
I have looked at the committee’s evidence sessions and, as the committee will know, and as the convener is right to say, the history of this goes back many years. The original petition was, I think, introduced in 2015, and that was followed by the commitment from the Government at that time to look at guidance—and then, of course, a commitment to publish further additional guidance, which we published last year.
It has taken too long—I will absolutely concede that. Part of the delay in relation to the most recent round of guidance was, of course, due to the pandemic, which I think was covered in some of the evidence that the committee heard. However, I accept that that has taken too long, and that it should not have had to come about in the way that it has.
The convener pointed to the fact that we are talking about a member’s bill. The committee will be aware that we published guidance last year. We have not yet reviewed the guidance and so, to my mind, there is a data gap in relation to its implementation and how it works.
The committee often asks the Government to do things that we do not have legislative power over because of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and the responsibilities of local authorities. A good example of that is guidance on mobile phones, which we debated recently. We can publish non-statutory guidance, but, at the current time, the statutory power rests with local authorities. Based on my understanding of some of the evidence that the committee has taken, we should also be mindful of that in relation to this bill.
As I said in my opening statement, we have not yet reviewed the guidance, and we would want to carry out that review. We still need to gather that data in order to understand to what extent the new guidance is improving practice. The committee has heard from the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland and from others that they are of the view that it is improving practice, but we need to look at the granular evidence. Originally, our view would have been that we would complete the review before considering whether statutory guidance was deemed necessary. However, the timelines for this bill mean that that has not been the case.
We are supportive of the bill at stage 1, but we have a number of concerns that I have written to the committee on, and we would like to see Mr Johnson address those. I am committed to working with him to that end.
Do you believe that there has been underreporting on the use of restraint and seclusion in Scottish schools?
I suspect that there probably has been.
Why? If you have suspected that, what have you done about it?
I think that part of the issue—this does not apply only to restraint—is that there might be reticence on the part of teachers to report, as they might be concerned about or fearful of doing so. We hear that quite often in relation to behaviour in schools, and we have debated some of those issues. In my time as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, I have been clear in calling for better and more consistent reporting, which I think has helped to shift the dial a bit.
However, fundamentally, teachers are often scared to report. The committee heard evidence from the NASUWT to that end—I spoke to Mike Corbett about that last week—and the Educational Institute of Scotland. Committees therefore need to be mindful of that and provide reassurance to the teaching profession, because they might be fearful about how reporting comes across.
As I think that the committee has also heard evidence on, local government is fearful that, were we to have greater reporting, that might lead to the creation of league tables, for example, and it is fearful of what that might mean for individual schools. I think that those issues can be dealt with more sensitively in the round. For example, the NASUWT has asked that we do not publish school-based data, which would certainly be a position that I would support. We need to be careful about how that is done.
However, in my experience, there is a reticence, and perhaps a fear, in the profession when it comes to reporting and what the use of restraint says about them. We need better reporting across the board. That is not true only in relation to restraint; I would highlight that we also need much better reporting on and recording of additional support needs.
My view on the bill is that it speaks to the relationship between local government and national Government in carrying out their responsibilities on education. There is an opportunity for us to learn from that experience and provide for better accountability and transparency, which is an issue that the committee has been pursuing in evidence sessions.
You spoke about the fears of teachers and local authorities. What about the fears of parents whose child comes home unwilling to speak about what happened at their school, and who cannot get that information? Throughout our evidence sessions, I have given the same example: if one of my boys trips in the playground and grazes their knee, we immediately get a phone call. That is one of the few issues on which Mr Adam and I agree in this committee, because he has similar experiences with his grandchildren. That happens for children in mainstream education, so why does it not happen when some of our most vulnerable children, who cannot express their own opinions in a normal way, are restrained and secluded?
I am sure that it was not deliberate, but when you spoke about fears, it was all about the fears of the teachers and of local authorities. I have real concerns about the fears of parents who do not know what is happening to their children while they are at school, right now, in 2025, here in Scotland.
I completely concur with your views on that, convener. I do not have children myself, but I have three nephews and a niece. My sisters receive regular updates, and information is shared about incidents that might have happened at nursery on a routine basis. You are right to flag that challenge. That is, of course, the other side of the coin, when it comes to sharing information with parents. To my mind, we need to see much better information sharing.
The national guidance that we published last year talks about a requirement to report by the end of the school day and Mr Johnson’s bill includes a provision, which we support, for that to happen within 24 hours. There is an opportunity here for better sharing of information with parents and carers. When incidents occur, the information should, of course, be shared with parents and carers. We would expect that to happen as a matter of course and something is going wrong when that does not happen. I have been very clear that the events that we heard about from Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger should not be happening in our schools as a matter of course.
The national guidance is an opportunity to improve practice, but we have not yet reviewed that guidance and must have certainty and assurance about where we are in the legislative landscape.
Robert Eckhart might want to come in.
On the point about underreporting, one of the objectives of the national guidance published last year was to provide a consistent set of definitions of restraint and seclusion in order to help the sector to understand and recognise those practices, so that there can be better recording.
Before we move to look at other aspects of the bill, I will take the opportunity to ask you about Drummond school in my region, which I think that you have agreed to visit. Campaigners for the bill, and parents, have told me of concerns about the school using restraint or seclusion, with pupils being left in corridors for quite a long time or being restrained for 30 minutes because of issues that I think could have been handled far better. What are your current thoughts on the situation at that school in Inverness? Is the fact that you are going to visit the school a sign that you are concerned about some of those reports?
I have received quite a lot of correspondence about the school that the member mentions. In my original correspondence with members, I said that the legislative landscape means that responsibility for the school rests with Highland Council, not with the Government. However, given the quantity of correspondence, I am keen to meet parents and carers and to listen to them directly. I do not want to prejudge that meeting before it takes place and it is difficult for me to comment on individual circumstances, but, given the strength of feeling from parents and carers, my view as cabinet secretary is that I should meet and listen to them. I will allow that meeting to take place and, given his interest, I am more than happy to meet the member and other members.
Finally, Rachel Smart from The Inverness Courier has done a lot of work on the issue in the past few weeks and has given examples of children at that school—Lily, Cole, Drew and Dexter—who have been restrained and secluded. Some of that reporting is quite harrowing, even though it does not go into the full extent of what is going on. Will you be able to update us if any issues that arise from your meeting are directly linked to the bill? Any further update from your meeting with Drummond school would also be appreciated.
I am happy to do so.
Thank you. We move to questions from Jackie Dunbar.
My question follows on from those by the convener. I am interested to hear about the Government’s role in protecting children and young people from the inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion. Will the bill assist the Government in that area?
That speaks to the point that the convener made at the start about the roles of local and national Government. Ministers have some powers relating to improvement in Scotland’s schools. There is legislation relating to standards in Scotland’s schools—Nico McKenzie-Juetten will be able to name the act—and there is the 1980 act, but the majority of the statutory responsibility for delivery of education lies with local government, which must have policies in place.
However, as we have heard in recent months and years, there has been a push from Parliament to have clearer direction from national Government on a number of issues, not least on this one. We have responded to petition PE1548 and to calls from parents and carers, and we published the national guidance last November. We can take a range of actions, but the primary responsibility for the delivery of education rests with local government. We can provide advisory guidance, and have done so, and we are, of course, discussing today whether Parliament will agree to put that on a statutory footing.
The committee might be interested to know that that might alter the future relationship between local and national Government and how we run our education services. That is a far bigger question than is dealt with by the bill, but the committee might want to be mindful of that, given the other issues that we have discussed in recent years. There are always challenges about where the responsibility for education sits.
08:45
I will go back a step to look at the non-statutory guidance that you mentioned in your opening statement. I take on board that you said that the review of the guidance was due to start shortly. However, the NASUWT expressed clear concerns about the guidance when it was published. What learning has the Government taken from those concerns to ensure that such issues do not arise in relation to the bill, especially regarding what the NASUWT said about there being insufficient clarity? It said that the guidance
“will leave children and staff in school at risk”.
The Government has a responsibility to consider how to clarify the guidance, which is a point that I will come on to. I know that the Government has not reviewed the guidance, but what lessons have you already learned from the concerns that were expressed about it?
We have not yet reviewed the guidance, so it would be pre-emptive of me to say that we have learned lessons from it. The guidance has not even been in place for a year, so the review will allow us to learn lessons. It is important that we allow the review to be conducted, regardless of the passage of this legislation.
I am live to the concerns that have been raised by the NASUWT. However, the committee also heard from Mike Corbett—I discussed the issue with him only last week—that his preference is that we look again at the guidance and, for example, at the approach that we have adopted in relation to the national behaviour action plan, on which the NASUWT has played a key role. The NASUWT was also involved in the publication of the guidance. I know that it was critical of the guidance, but it was also involved in its formation.
As I understand it, the view of the NASUWT is that we should look again at the non-statutory guidance and make improvements to it, working with the professional associations, parents, carers and others, as opposed to putting it on a statutory footing. I am sure that Mike Corbett will correct me if I am wrong in that interpretation. We discussed the guidance last week, and he is critical of it, but his view—certainly, the view that was expressed to me—is that the preference of the NASUWT is that the guidance be improved, as opposed to moving it on to a statutory footing.
To go back to the points that I made to the convener, Mike Corbett has concerns about teachers and there are fears in the profession about what the guidance might say if it were to be put on a statutory footing.
One of the key aspects of that concern has been about definitions—those that are in the member’s bill and those that the Government uses are different. How will the Government amend the bill’s definitions of restraint and seclusion, and how will that encompass practices that are not of obvious concern?
I have written to the committee about the issue of definitions. The definitions that are used in Mr Johnson’s bill are different to those that we proposed in the guidance. We think that the definitions that are currently proposed in the bill are too broad, so we want to see them finessed somewhat. For example, the committee heard anecdotal evidence about whether taking a child’s hand while crossing the road would be considered to be restraint.
We need to be much clearer about definitions of restraint. We have suggested that to Mr Johnson in private session, and we will work with him to that end. Of course, it would not be for the Government to amend the bill; it would be for Mr Johnson to lodge those amendments.
With regard to seclusion, the committee has heard evidence on practices that we would not understand to be seclusion. To my mind—I will be corrected by officials on this if I am wrong—seclusion is about a deprivation of liberty whereby, for example, a child would not be able to leave a room. That is quite different to approaches to behaviour and relationships in mainstream settings whereby a child might, for example, be asked to work elsewhere because there are challenges in the classroom, but that child might still be able to go to the toilet—their liberty has not been deprived of them. We need to be more careful with and clearer about our definitions of seclusion. We have made suggestions to Mr Johnson, and, in my correspondence to the committee, I make the point that the definitions are too broad at the current time.
Robert Eckhart, do you want to say anything further on that?
Those are issues that we have identified in our assessment of Mr Johnson’s bill. As our guidance outlines, isolating a child away from others, preventing them from leaving and keeping them in a space against their meets the higher category of seclusion. Whether that is a deprivation of liberty is a matter that will depend on the circumstances, but that is the approach that we have taken in the non-statutory guidance.
Good morning. The definitions are one of the things that I am trying to get my head around. As you have quite rightly said, the teaching trade unions have issues, to put it mildly, with the definition. They will have to deal with it day in and day out, so it will be very difficult for them. There are legal concerns, as well as concerns about what the definition is.
My concern is around what would happen if a teacher was trying to stop a child from doing something that they should not be doing. The definition is so tight that if a teacher grabbed a child who was going to jump in front of a car, that could be construed as restraining a child. I know that that is an extreme example, but it could be seen as some form of restraint. Where do we draw the line? I have some concerns that the definition seems pretty vague and it could be opened up to all kinds of interpretation. The key worry is about where it could end up.
I have been reflecting on some of the evidence that the committee has taken. As I said in my opening statement, most teachers in Scotland are not trained in restraint practices, which I think that we need to be very careful about. In most mainstream settings, those practices would not be used ordinarily. However, as the committee heard from Lynne Binnie, ADES’s evidence suggested that the practice was mostly used in early learning and childcare and primary settings and in specialist settings. To my mind, we do not yet have a national picture. During evidence sessions, Mr Briggs quoted statistics from the Care Inspectorate, but that covers settings only in which the Care Inspectorate operates. At the moment, we do not have the national picture for education services, because we do not gather the data. The review is extremely important, as it will provide us with a clearer understanding of what is going on in which settings and which staff are using or not using those practices.
The teaching unions are very keen to point out to me that many teachers do not want to be trained in restraint practices. Certainly, from when I undertook my teacher training many years ago, I know that most people in education will not engage in restraint, but in a specialist education facility, such as an ASN unit or some ELC settings, there may be a member of staff who has been trained in those types of approaches. It is quite a unique approach in Scotland that exists in our education system—although it is not unique to Scotland. We need to be mindful not to set hares running about where we are with restraint because, in my experience, it is not used commonly in mainstream settings.
However, we do not yet have the evidence base. To answer Mr Adams’ point about individual incidents, we need the evidence base to inform and to help to support the next steps.
I have taken on board from some the evidence that teachers in the classroom might be second-guessing what they are going to do and how they are going to deal with certain situations, which I am concerned about. I do not like the idea of teachers not knowing how to proceed with something because the definitions in the bill are so vague. It is a challenging enough environment for teachers as it is. Will the bill not cause more problems, or am I my being overly dramatic?
The Government has said that we will support the bill at stage 1, but as the committee has heard about, the trade unions are concerned about some issues. We need to work with Mr Johnson to ameliorate some of the challenges. Definitions are part of the issue. We will continue to undertake that work, but there are diverging views on the issues, particularly from the teaching unions’ perspective, of which I am mindful.
I take on board what the cabinet secretary has said, because for most of us, the cases that parents and carers have raised with us have been about children who have additional support needs and in many instances they concern non-verbal children. That is a major concern because parents are not able to follow up on what has gone on during the school day with the child and they have they not been able to find out from professionals.
I wonder about where the Government is minded to see those changes in a school context. The cabinet secretary has raised a point about the findings of the Care Commission. I thought it was interesting that we have seen a reduction in that. I am not quite sure what is behind that, and I do not know whether the cabinet secretary knows either. What has changed to deliver that reduction? That is a two-part question about different school contexts.
I think that the committee has heard evidence on the role of the Care Inspectorate and, potentially, the role of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education regarding reporting in future. There are divergent views on that as well.
The committee heard from Pauline Stephen of the General Teaching Council for Scotland that, if we introduce the measures on a statutory footing, we need to be mindful that our approaches to child protection are not currently statutory. They are multi-agency measures, and the current landscape does not necessarily lend itself to a neat fix.
There is a big history behind the bill, with parents pushing for the proposed measures to happen, but it is fair to say that it has been challenging for the Government, over a number of years, to resolve the issues.
As for reducing the number of incidents, my understanding is that the Care Inspectorate has moved away from some practices over a number of years. That has partly been informed by the Promise—from which, I put on the record, I am recused. The committee has heard about the movement and change in behaviour, approaches and practices that has been happening organically over time. There has been a focus on moving away from such types of practices, and the committee has taken evidence on that from witnesses who have concurred with the opinion that has been expressed.
Remember, however, that the Care Inspectorate evidence is only one side of the coin. We do not have the granular detail from education services, and I think that we need it to inform the review.
Would you expect that to be appear very quickly following the bill’s passage?
We are reviewing the current guidance regardless of the bill’s passage—and it is important that I say that. I am mindful of where we are in the parliamentary year.
You have stated that you are in support of the bill in principle.
Yes.
You have an awful lot of caveats about it. Just tell us how you think you would vote at stage 3. Are you committing to vote for the bill all the way through its passage, or is your support just in principle and, if the detail does not work out, you will not support it later? I know that I am asking you to project forward, but there are an awful lot of caveats in what you are saying, and it sounds quite critical of the bill.
To be fair—as a woman with caveats—this is not a Government bill. I am being candid with the committee here. We published guidance last November; we are not even a year on since the guidance was published. We need to review that guidance, and it would be remiss of me not to say that we need the data to inform good law. That is important. I am supportive of the bill at stage 1, and I understand the aspiration. I have had a lot of engagement with Mr Johnson on that, and I have set out our position on a number of different areas in correspondence to the committee—in relation to the definitions, which we have discussed, and in relation to the duty to record, on which there is an issue in the bill, although I think it can be resolved pretty easily. There is no requirement for education authorities—our councils—or for independent or grant-aided schools to report the use of restraint and seclusion at a national level under the terms of the 2024 guidance. I think that Mr Johnson’s bill has grant-aided schools and independent schools reporting to the individual local authority. Is that correct?
In the authority area that they are situated in.
That creates challenges for us. We think that those things can be resolved, but I am being honest with the committee, and I have set out in correspondence that those are the issues that we need to resolve with Mr Johnson. He has been very open to doing that, so, to respond to Mr Rennie’s point, I do not think that those issues are insurmountable.
You have said that it is for Mr Johnson to come forward with amendments, but you could draft amendments.
Of course we can—and we may yet do so.
If I may interject here, I had not thought of this earlier but, on Mr Rennie’s line of questioning, I know from having done a member’s bill myself that there is a period when the Government, if it is supportive, can take on the bill itself. Given everything that you have said about being supportive, what was your consideration about taking on the bill as a Government bill? I think that the Government gets to consider that during a six-week period.
Officials can correct me if I am wrong on this, but the bill was introduced in March, I think—
It was introduced in March.
We had just launched the guidance in November 2024. Our preference was to review the guidance, and our view was that the timescales did not meet the Government’s requirement to take on the bill, because we had not yet carried out or started the review, and we needed that granular detail to inform any legislative change. To my mind, it would have been jumping the gun somewhat for us to adopt a bill not four months after the publication of our own guidance.
But you know how long a bill takes to go through as a non-Government bill, so the Government has an opportunity. When you were speaking to Mr Rennie it sounded like you agree with lots of things, but you might not do it in the same way. What discussion did you have? Was it simply about that timescale? Did the matter go to the Cabinet so that the Government could consider taking the bill on?
I cannot recall, on the second point, but I am happy to write to the committee on that. However, I have engaged with Mr Johnson on the matter over a number of years. We have been engaging with Mr Johnson on it throughout my time as cabinet secretary. We have been discussing it, and he has been aware of the need for us to publish guidance. He has fed into some of that process, and his team have been helpful in sharing their thoughts. We have been engaged throughout the period in question.
Convener, you are right that the Government could perhaps have taken a decision earlier on whether to take on the bill. We did not do that because of the timescales associated with the publication of the guidance. We are content to support Mr Johnson’s bill at stage 1, but we are still going to carry out a review of how the guidance is operating in practice, which we hope will help to inform the passage of the bill.
09:00
So, what has changed? You still have not carried out a review and we are still learning from the experience, so why are you now supporting the bill, when you previously opposed it?
I do not necessarily agree with Mr Rennie’s characterisation of the Government’s position as opposing the bill. I think—
You did not support it.
Let us look at the history, which is that the previous cabinet secretary was asked to provide guidance. That was asked for by lots of different stakeholders, before my time as cabinet secretary—I think that that goes back to 2019. The original agreement was to provide guidance. We have moved on from that to putting things on a statutory footing, so I am not sure that I agree with—
I am asking about what has changed between the point at which the bill was published, when you said that you were more minded to stick with the guidance approach rather than taking the statutory approach, because you had still not carried out a review. You still have not carried out a review but you are now supportive of the bill in principle. What has changed between then and now—
Do you mean between the introduction of the bill and now?
I am asking what has changed between the point at which the bill was published—when you said that you were minded to stick with the guidance route rather than take the statutory route that was set out in the bill—and now, given that nothing seems to have changed but you are supporting the bill.
I am not sure that I follow the line of questioning. We published the guidance in November last year; we need to review that guidance, and that was happening regardless of the passage of the bill. With regard to the bill’s general principles, we have always been supportive of the kind of approach that Mr Johnson has taken. I do not really have an issue with his approach. I have set out a number of areas that we would like to see amended. It is for Mr Johnson to amend the bill, but the Government can assist with that, and I have been very clear about that. Therefore, I am not sure that I accept that things have changed in that regard.
What has changed is the requirement for the approach to be put on a statutory footing, so we have had to reflect on that. I do not have an issue with that at the general principles level. We will need to look at the amendments that are lodged at stage 2 and at what our stakeholders’ asks and aspirations are. As the committee has heard, there are divergent views on the matter. There are lots of different stakeholders involved in this matter. To be candid, that has been part of the issue that the Government has faced over a number of years—bringing stakeholders together on the publication of guidance. I still think that it is important that we review the guidance, that we have the data and that that informs the legislative process.
I do not think that that is particularly clear, but anyway.
We will have to agree to disagree with my caveats, Mr Rennie.
On the reporting mechanisms, you indicated that many of the instances of restraint are in specialist or ELC settings, but there are different reporting mechanisms, with the Care Inspectorate in one regard and others elsewhere. Are you concerned about the different routes for reporting? Is that in your mind, and can you tell us more about that?
Yes. I have written to the committee on that. Mr Johnson’s approach is quite focused on education settings. I completely understand why he has done that, which is not to take away from the approaches that are used in other settings. We think that there is a way in which they could complement each other, and that is the approach that we suggest should work.
However, there are issues in relation to the policy memorandum and why the bill needs independent and grant-aided schools to report restraint to the education authority in which they are situated. That needs to be looked at. There are issues in relation to the role of the inspectorate, and there is an ask that the inspectorate is involved in national reporting. We look at the financial memorandum in that regard to consider whether this approach will drive more costs. These issues need to be flushed out during stage 2 deliberations, but I do not think that they are insurmountable.
Therefore, do you support Pauline Stephen from the GTCS, who has indicated that, although she is supportive of the bill, it should lead to putting the rest of safeguarding on a statutory footing?
I read Pauline Stephen’s evidence. She made the point about child protection services, which I think that I mentioned previously, because that would create a situation in which this guidance was on a statutory footing and then, behind that, there would be a child protection service and systems that are not provided for in the same way. She raised a very important point.
If we were to do what Pauline suggested—what I think that she said that she would do if she ran the world—the bill would become something that it is not currently. It would be a far more extensive piece of legislation. We talk about legislative timescales, and we are all aware of how close we are to dissolution now, so I suspect that that might become a much more unwieldy piece of legislation. That is not to say that it is not important, because, in principle, I agree that there is an opportunity to look across the piste, but the bill is quite focused.
I am sure that you will want to put these points to Mr Johnson to get his views. My view is that we should look at it, but I am not necessarily convinced that the focus of the bill currently lends itself to that approach. However, if the Parliament decides that that is where it wants to go, that is, of course, in the gift of the Parliament.
I will follow up what George Adam and Miles Briggs said with regard to definitions. I am speaking as someone who has supported the bill, so I am asking devil’s advocate questions. Are you concerned that, if we are not clear, there might be caution among staff at critical moments, when an intervention is required, and, because it is on a statutory footing, they step back?
Yes, I think that that is a risk, and the committee and the Parliament need to be mindful of that and how we can guard against it with regard to the next steps. However, I would counter that there is probably already a risk of such reticence on the part of staff, which speaks to the issues that the convener raised earlier about reticence with regard to reporting. So that reticence exists already to some extent in the teaching population and the education workforce. If the bill gets to stage 2, which I suspect that it will, we can consider how we might ameliorate that situation by working with local government. However, that is not without its challenges, which is a point that trade unions raised.
Are you saying that you will lodge amendments, rather than leaving it to Mr Johnson to make the bill effective and have the confidence of the Government?
I have said to Mr Johnson that we will work with him on his member’s bill. I am not going to be more definitive than that today, Mr Rennie, because these are discussions that we would have at stage 2. However, I have said that we will work with him, and we have had a very positive working relationship thus far. I hope that that provides the member with some reassurance.
Good morning. I will touch on the notification of parents, which is an area that we have discussed a bit already. In the interests of clarity, can the cabinet secretary set out the Government’s position on the bill’s approach to schools being required to inform parents and carers when restraint is used?
As I think that I mentioned in response to a previous question, the Government is supportive of the approach. The current guidance requires that parents are notified before the end of the school day, I think, and Mr Johnson’s bill says that it should be done within 24 hours. We are supportive of the approach that has been set out.
We also think that there might be an opportunity to deal with some of this in the guidance that will sit alongside the bill.
Does the Government think that the timescale should be different if there are welfare concerns with regard to informing parents or carers?
Can Ms Duncan-Glancy give me an example of what that might look like?
I presume that it means situations in which informing a parent or carer might result in the child being blamed or the parent overreacting, for example. Does the Government have any concerns about that?
That concern was put to the committee by Mike Corbett of the NASUWT, and I heard again from him last week that better reporting, which the convener has called for and which I support, might put children in danger to some extent. Those are issues that we would need to consider in the round. I was quite taken by Mike Corbett’s point, and we would need to be mindful of it. I am sure that there are ways in which we could work with local government to provide more reassurance around that, but it should not be the case that we are not informing parents about things for fear of other things happening. There might be something in the mix in relation to how we work with schools and parents in individual circumstances where there might be a concern at home about that type of behaviour.
That is helpful; thank you.
We have heard a lot from parents about circumstances when they have not been informed about the use of restraint. As you heard earlier, the parents can hear about an incident from the young person or a third person, or the information comes to light in some other way. Who is accountable when that happens?
If individuals are not being informed, it is the local authority that is accountable. The headteacher has a responsibility in that regard, too, but statutory responsibility is with the local authority. Therefore, the local authority should have practices in place. I think that the committee has taken evidence on that from ADES and others. Local authorities should have policies in place, and individual schools should be working with parents and carers. The committee has heard evidence that, sometimes, parents are not informed and things go wrong. In my experience, parents are informed. However, we are here talking about how we can ensure that things do not go wrong in the future.
What is the Government’s expectation of schools and local authorities if parents are not informed? What are the consequences of that?
The national guidance sets out the Government’s expectation that parents are notified by the end of the school day, so if a school did not do that, that would run contrary to the national guidance. However, the guidance is not statutory, which is why we are discussing legislation.
I have heard this morning that the Government is quite keen to gather data and that it recognises that there are some data gaps, which is an important point. I hope that the bill provides an opportunity to address some of that.
Where restraint is used in care settings, incidents are reported externally and can trigger support and challenge, which speaks to the accountability piece that I have just spoken about. In education, that level of live external scrutiny does not necessarily exist. Does the Government believe that schools should move closer to the care model, where incidents are not just logged locally but are actively monitored or challenged?
That question speaks to the point that Mr Rennie was pursuing in relation to our role in opening up the discussion. Mr Johnson’s bill is focused on education settings because, as Ms Duncan-Glancy has alluded to, we have different approaches in care settings and in ELC settings, where the Care Inspectorate has a role. If we were to take a similar approach in education, we would need to be mindful that that would completely alter the nature of the bill. I think it is fair to say that that would elongate its passage, because it would be asking much bigger questions. That is not to say that the issues are not important but, currently, we do not have the national data that we need on those incidents. I agree with Ms Duncan-Glancy’s intention in that regard.
There has been a suggestion that the inspectorate would have a role in gathering the data. When the committee is considering the bill at stage 2, I am sure that it will want to hear from the inspectorate with its views on how that would operate and how local government in particular would co-operate. It would depend on local reporting and recording practices, and we would need there to be much greater consistency across the piece. The Care Inspectorate’s approach is quite different from the approach that is taken in education, where there is no statutory requirement to record incidents. Ms Duncan-Glancy makes an interesting point. However, if we were to follow that approach, it would change the nature of the bill that we are discussing. I understand why Mr Johnson has focused on education settings.
Data gathering is crucial and it is a key reason for the bill.
In other situations, the care setting, which in this case would be the school, would get support following an incident, so that it does not feel alone in dealing with it. Support would also be given to the parents so that they were not left alone in trying to challenge or discuss what has happened. Does the cabinet secretary think that there is a role for any supportive external influence for parents or schools?
It is difficult to comment on individual incidents, but would we be saying that individual incidents of restraint would always trigger support? I am not necessarily sure that they would. The level of support may vary and look different.
In Scottish education, we place a lot of trust in those who are on the front line. We say that they are the decision makers and that they have the professional skills and knowledge to decide on the best support to put in place. I think that Ms Duncan-Glancy pursued a line of questioning with some of the witnesses about what post-incident support would look like. I am happy to consider that as part of our discussions at stage 2. However, what that would look like would vary according to the individual incidents and individuals in the schools.
Finally, on reporting, parents have been clear that they want data to be gathered, but they are not interested in creating league tables. They want something specific for their circumstances so that they know when something has happened to their young person and they want to be confident that the system supports that. Does the Government agree that incident data should be recorded nationally, while its analysis should be supportive of the situation, as opposed to creating league tables?
Yes, but I think that it will be challenging to do that. As the committee will know, local government will have a strong view on the creation of league tables. In education, whether it is about behaviour or exclusion rates, there is often a real reticence on the part of local government partners to have an approach that measures them against one another.
I also think that such an approach—which I do not support—would not be helpful. Reporting might increase in a local authority, which would be a good thing, but then it might feel under the spotlight, simply because of that increase. We have seen that with some local authorities with regard to behaviour—I think that it is quite interesting.
I hear the point that Ms Duncan-Glancy is making, but I think that we need to deal with these issues very carefully. Moreover, it should not take away from the fact that, individually, parents and carers should know of incidents of restraint as and when they happen, and that they should be informed as a matter of course. Our national guidance sets that out, and it is certainly our expectation, but I think that the bill will put it beyond doubt, because it will put it on a statutory footing.
09:15
Does the cabinet secretary think that there is a way of gathering that data that does not create league tables?
That has been part of the challenge facing the Government for a number of years. Indeed, the point was pursued by one of the trade unions when it raised concerns about individual school-based data. I think that that sort of thing would need to be undertaken in a very sensitive way. I do not think that the issue is insurmountable, and of course it is part of the bill, which we are supportive of. We will continue to engage with Mr Johnson on this at stage 2, because we need to reassure local government that authorities are not going to be measured against one another and that national data will help inform better practice.
Thank you.
Why do we need to give local government that reassurance? Are we not being a bit timid here? Is that what we say when local government throws up its hands and says, “Oh no, we’re worried about being compared with one another”? Authorities should be compared with one another. There might be very valid reasons for the use of restraint and seclusion, but I would like to know what they are. I would like to know which schools in Moray, in Highland and across Scotland are using them, and they can then say, “These are the very good reasons why restraint and seclusion are being used”, for example, or “These figures show that we have issues, and we are going to deal with them.”
I am sympathetic to the points that you make, convener. I would just observe that the statutory responsibilities currently rest at local authority level; I have some powers at national level, but they are limited. When we come to talk about these issues, I would like to see far more Scottish education data in that regard. I am sympathetic to the points that you have made, but local government will not be, so we need to work within the current parameters.
That said, I think that the bill, although it is very focused on restraint, speaks to a wider issue in relation to how we deliver education. I have made the same point previously. The committee will be aware of the appointment of John Wilson, which local government is not particularly fond of—I am sure that members will have seen some of the feedback in that regard. I think that, post the pandemic, we need to think about how we fund our schools, how they are governed, how we support them and what the accountability mechanisms are at both national and local level. I hope that Mr Wilson’s appointment will reassure the convener on that point.
What I would say to committee members—I have said this in the chamber, too—is this: please sit down and speak to Mr Wilson about the issues that you, as members, have encountered in relation to the delivery of education.
You raise some important points, convener.
I wonder whether, 10 years on from the work of campaigners such as Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger, we would not be having to raise these issues again if the figures were more in the public domain.
I suspect that you are right.
Just before I call Mr Greer, I want to go back to Ms Duncan-Glancy’s point about reporting. Some of the written and, indeed, oral evidence that we have received suggests that 24 hours is perhaps too tight a period in which to produce a full report, and that it should be produced the next school day. My concern is that, if something were to happen on a Friday, a family would not know for the whole weekend why their child was very upset. An incident could happen at the end of June on the last day of term and the family would not get anything until after the holidays. In my view, that would be completely inappropriate. Do you agree with that, despite some of the unions thinking that it should be the next school day? There would be significant problems if we were talking about, say, a holiday or weekend.
I agree with your view, convener, that it should be prioritised, and the national guidance sets out that approach. I do not think that we are going to move away from that view.
Okay. Thank you.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. Earlier, you flagged up some issues with regard to reporting in independent schools, and I just want to clarify the Government’s position on that.
There are three overlapping issues here, I think. First, if we are going to go forward with this, we will not want some two-tier system in which independent schools are not held to the same standard as state schools. However, the fact is that independent schools, in general, do not have a direct relationship with the local authority in which they are situated. Moreover, the local authority in which the school is situated might differ from the local authority that has placed a child in the school’s care, particularly if we are talking about an independent special school. It does not even have to be a special school; many of the pupils who attend private schools in Glasgow and Edinburgh come from surrounding local authority areas.
In its initial memorandum on the bill, the Government flagged up a couple of these issues as being worthy of consideration and scrutiny, but I am not entirely clear what the Government’s position is on them. Can you clarify it? Is it your position that the bill would have to be amended to resolve some of these issues, particularly the potential for dual reporting?
Yes. With regard to children attending a school outwith their own area, we are of the view that the report should be made to their local authority. For example, if the placing request caame from, say, the Highland Council for a young person to be placed in Moray, the report should go to where the placing request—[Interruption.] I am just checking that with officials, but yes, there is a bit of an issue in that respect.
As for the independent sector, I know that the Scottish Council of Independent Schools is broadly supportive of the bill, but there are issues there. For example, we do not want dual reporting. However, we think that amendments could be lodged at stage 2 that would resolve such issues.
My other line of questioning is a bit different, but it goes back to the point that you have touched on a few times about industrial relations and the position of the trade unions. It is fair to say that, at the moment, the general area of focus for teachers’ unions is not pay, but conditions, workload issues and so on. Do you envisage the bill having any impact, adverse or positive, on industrial relations and the atmosphere in the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers?
I think that it is fair to say that the trade unions are not supportive of the legislation, so the Parliament needs to be mindful of that. There is quite a lot of support in the committee for the bill, and, of course, the Government is supporting it at stage 1, too, but we need to work with the trade unions on it.
There is more that we can do in this space to provide reassurance, and I would want to work with Mr Johnson in engaging with the professional associations. They are clear that they do not want the guidance to be put on a statutory footing. For all the reasons that Mike Corbett has set out to the committee, their preference would be for us to work with them on improving the guidance and perhaps making it a bit stronger, as we have done with behaviour. We can give more concrete examples and more support to the profession in that kind of non-statutory space, but that is not where we are here.
I am more than happy to engage with the trade unions on this. However, they have a number of concerns, and I come back to Mr Rennie’s point about the bill creating a chilling effect and, as a result, teachers not using restraint. An alternative view is the evidence that the committee took from Barnardo’s, which said that, on the contrary, there might be an increase in the use of restraint as a result of the legislation. We need to be mindful of those views.
I would hope that our engagement with the professional associations will not create challenges, but I have met them and have listened to their challenge. We need to do that as the bill progresses.
I take on board your point that the unions have made their position pretty clear. In the discussions that you have had with them—and I accept that there will be a degree of confidentiality, up to a point—have any of the unions raised the prospect of the legislation becoming an issue in an SNCT setting or in a formal industrial relations context, instead of just being one of the many wider policy discussions that you have with them and which sit outside SNCT?
Well, anything can happen in Scottish education, Mr Greer. Thinking of the most recent conversation that I had with the NASUWT and the EIS, which was last week, I would say no, but that does not preclude it from happening in the future.
I appreciate that. Your answer is useful, though.
I call John Mason.
The issue of training has already been touched on by others. As Mr Greer has pointed out—it is a point that I was going to raise—it was brought to the committee’s attention that, as you have suggested already, teachers are perhaps fearful of restraining kids in any way at the moment. More training—and, indeed, more standardised training—might, in a sense, reassure teachers that they can use restraint, which might, in turn, lead to an increase in its use. Would that concern you?
Yes, and that was the point that I was making to Mr Greer when I highlighted the evidence from Barnardo’s. I can say from my experience as a teacher who worked in mainstream education that restraint was not a practice that I was trained in, and nor were the vast majority of my colleagues. If anything, the counter was true.
We need to be mindful that most teachers will not view this as something that sits with them, because they believe that, when it comes to education, their first duty is to educate. Therefore, we need to be careful about that. The fact is that the bill—and, indeed, our guidance—applies to all settings. I have been pushing with officials the question whether we can be a bit clearer about that at stage 2, and we can discuss these points with Mr Johnson as the bill progresses.
I would not want to see an increase in the use of restraint practices; indeed, that is not the purpose of the legislation, as I understand it. However, such practices exist in some settings, and they have to be accompanied by staff who are appropriately trained. Most staff in our education services are not going to find themselves in those circumstances, because they work in mainstream education. As a result, we need to be careful about whom we are talking about.
I am sure that the committee will probe those points with Mr Johnson, but I should say that the trade unions put the same points to me last week when they raised concerns about the message that is being sent.
Could any teacher not be in a situation where there needs to be physical intervention—for example, if a secondary 6 pupil is bashing an S1 who has special needs?
They could be in that situation, but they might not have had training and might be reticent. It is difficult for me to comment on individual examples but, in my experience, teachers are very reticent ever to involve themselves physically in any debates that may ensue in school, because—responding to the points that the convener made at the start of the evidence session—they are fearful of what may happen as a result. That is also part of the trade unions’ position. We need to be careful about that.
The bill stipulates an approach that does not mandate training, although it does provide for a national list of providers, which we are supportive of. We have provided further detail in that regard in our guidance. I think that the approach that Mr Johnson has taken is the right one, and we will work with him further on training. The training that is required of staff can take a number of days, as I understand it—I think that the committee took evidence on that. We are talking about staff going out of school for quite a long time. We need to think about the costs that that will incur in terms of school budgets and what it might mean for people being out of school and for staff cover. All those things will need to be resolved at stage 2.
To my mind, training on restraint is not something that all teachers will want to take part in. In fact, many teachers will not want to be part of it, because it is for teachers who work in specialist provision or perhaps in ELC.
There is quite a lot in this. An issue that has been raised with us is that the de-escalation side of things is, or should be, a key part of the training. I fully accept that some of that applies whether the bill goes through or not. Is it the case that some teachers get all the training—three days a year or whatever it might be—while other teachers get nothing? Is it more of a sliding scale, in that all teachers need and might get training on de-escalation? I am not familiar with the position, but is it the case that, at the more serious end of physical restraint, the training would only be for a minority of teachers?
At present, all teachers are not trained in restraint. The committee has previously considered the approaches that are used in relation to ASN and teacher training. We cannot mandate individual education providers.
I would have been keen for us to explore the number of hours that are allocated to the teaching of additional support needs in initial teacher education. It is difficult to mandate independent universities, which are autonomous from the Government, as you are about to hear, and tell them that they have to teach X number of hours on autism or dyslexia, for instance.
There are challenges in relation to initial teacher education, but there are also challenges in relation to local government, as local authorities have a responsibility to provide continuing professional development. There are disparate teacher training practices across the country and within local authorities, and they are often dependent on individual teacher needs. At present, we do not mandate; we say that teachers use their professional judgment for their own continuing professional development. They have 35 hours a year—as I recall from the back of my brain—in which to complete CPD activities that they think will benefit their teaching and learning. We do not mandate at the current time.
There are disparate practices, and you are right to say that there will be different approaches to how teacher training is done, but the national list that the bill provides for will give us some certainty. Under the 2024 guidance, only training providers who have achieved Restraint Reduction Network certification should be used, and that approach is mirrored in Daniel Johnson’s approach. Consistency is provided for in the guidance and in the bill, but at present we have different approaches across the country. I think that the committee is taking evidence from local government on that.
It strikes me that it is probably a good thing to have different approaches, certainly for individual teachers, as there is a whole range of schools out there.
Yes—and there are rural dynamics.
Some mainstream schools have special needs units in them.
They do.
There is a bit of interaction there.
The phrase “training needs analysis” has been raised, although I have forgotten the name of the witness who raised it. Perhaps that is what happens at the moment, but would you be sympathetic to the idea that every member of staff should themselves examine what training they need, given the situation that they are in?
I am not familiar with the phrase “training needs analysis”, but I would argue that teachers do that anyway. They do that every year as part of their CPD—they consider what they are delivering. If they have a class one year with lots of young people with additional support needs, they might say that, as part of their continuing development for that year, they will engage in further training on X, Y and Z to support the young people in their care. That is something that individual teachers take a decision on and we do not mandate that as a Government—neither does local government. However, the committee might want to pursue the issue at stage 2 or with Mr Johnson.
I hear the point that Mr Mason is making, but we also need to be mindful that teachers are professionals, and they tend to make those individual judgments as professionals. I am not sure that it is for me to tell them what training they need in that regard, because their classes and the needs in front of them will change every year. They adapt their training appropriately and accordingly.
09:30
I agree with that—it cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach. We will maybe explore that issue further.
You have already mentioned the idea of having a list of training providers, which you sound sympathetic to. We raised the question of some councils wanting to do more internal training, so that some people will presumably get trained up—
Train the trainer.
Yes, exactly. Some people will get trained up to a high level and then they will train within the local authority. Does that fit with this model?
I think so. I have seen the evidence and am aware that that practice is used across the country in a range of different ways. Robert Eckhart might want to say more on that.
Just to clarify, to follow the current guidance that was published last year, that approach would be compliant as long as the trainer, in every circumstance, was certified to restraint reduction network standards.
So, whether it was a trainer, an individual, a couple of folk within a local authority or an external provider, they would all go through the same training or have the same qualification standard?
Yes, that is right.
Okay, thank you.
The other area that I want to touch on, as you have probably gathered, is about resources. In their responses, the EIS and the NASUWT have said that we need more resources in mainstream schools and special needs schools, so that there will be less temptation, need and pressure for restraint. Are you sympathetic to that argument?
I am always sympathetic to having more money provided to my budget. I have seen the evidence from the EIS and the NASUWT. That is a routine ask from the trade unions—that will not surprise the committee. I accept that pressures on our schools in relation to additional support needs have increased, particularly in recent years. Last year’s budget included £28 million of extra money for additional support needs, which complements the additional £1 billion of spend in the previous financial year.
There is extra money going into the system, but I am sympathetic to the points about resourcing. We need to consider those issues with regard to the financial memorandum. We have raised some challenges in relation to inflation, which has not been accounted for and which I know that the committee will be keen to consider. We need to look at that. If we are looking at a need for extra resourcing, we must consider where that will come from. Of course, we are approaching the budget, so, if members have views on where extra money for education should come from, I am all ears and will engage on a cross-party basis, because I would be supportive of more funding coming to the education portfolio.
You tempt me to suggest that we should raise taxes, which I think that Mr Greer would be on board with as well, but I am not sure that the rest of the committee would be that keen. I will leave it at that.
Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. That concludes this evidence session on the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill. However, late in the session, you provided me with a hook to ask this next question. In response to Mr Mason, you commented on our next evidence session, which is with the University of Dundee. Will you be watching that evidence session, and what do you expect us to hear from the university?
I do not want to prejudge the outcome of your engagement with the University of Dundee. I will say that the university is at a critical crossroads, and I know that the committee is mindful of that. We need to ensure the institution’s future, and that it is financially stable. The Government has been working on the issue for a number of months, and, as the committee also knows, the Scottish Funding Council is preparing conditions for funding that will support the institution to become financially stable.
I do not want to prejudge the evidence session. I await its outcome, and I am more than happy to continue engagement with the committee.
Do you expect that we will hear from Dundee university that it is happy with the Scottish Government at the moment?
I sincerely hope that the university is happy with the Scottish Government. We are providing a large amount of public money to help it, given the challenges that it has encountered as a result of the financial decisions that were taken by the previous management team.
I will bring in any other members if they have any quick questions on this subject.
When Ben Macpherson, the Minister for Higher and Further Education, was before us, I raised concerns about the SFC’s impartiality and its independence from the Scottish Government, particularly with regard to the University of Dundee, and I also raised them with the First Minister at the Conveners Group, so you will be aware of them. What have you made of those concerns, which, it has now been confirmed publicly, were discussed at a meeting of the SFC’s board?
I am going to a meeting with the Scottish Funding Council after this evidence session, so I will interrogate the point that you have made. I am not necessarily sure that I agree with the point about impartiality, but I am more than happy to continue my engagement with the SFC in that regard.
When the issue was raised, did you start to speak among yourselves—officials and ministers—to say, “We may have a problem here”?
Which specific point are you alluding to with regard to impartiality?
I am referring to the point that there are people who believe that the SFC is now a conduit for the Scottish Government and that it is not acting impartially with regard to the Scottish Government.
I think that the evidence base for that was background briefing in the press, with unattributed sources. Is that correct?
Yes, but then Mr Maconachie from the SFC confirmed that those discussions had taken place at its board meeting earlier this year. Therefore, board members of the SFC have said to the leadership of the SFC that there are concerns that the funding council is just a conduit for the Government and is not acting impartially with regard to the Government. As the education secretary, what do you say about that?
I am about to attend a meeting with the Scottish Funding Council. We engage with it regularly. I think that the reports that the member alluded to are some months old. I saw them at the time and I was concerned by them. Of course, over a number of months, I have discussed with the SFC its position in relation to Dundee university. I will continue to have those discussions—in fact, I will do that just after this evidence session concludes.
I detect that there is now a much more positive relationship between the SFC, the Government and the university. Do you agree that that is the case?
Mr Rennie, you know that I am always a positive minister when I am in front of this committee, and in engagement—
No, but seriously, do you think that there is now a better relationship?
Look, it has been challenging, and I am not going to pretend otherwise.
It has been challenging, but is it better now?
Is it better? We need to go back to what happened. Dundee university—
Why are you reluctant to say that it is better? I sense that there is a much more positive relationship now. Why are you reluctant to say that?
I am not necessarily sure that I am reluctant to say that it is better. It is just that I suppose that Mr Rennie presumes that the relationship was bad at some point. I mean, we are bailing out a—
Well, it was bad, because you said that the financial recovery plan had been rejected.
A significant amount of public money is being invested to support the institution. You know that that is extremely unusual, because our universities are independent and autonomous. It is not the case that any other institution is receiving the financial support that Dundee university is receiving at this time, and we need to be mindful of that.
If Mr Rennie thinks that the relationship has improved, that is a good thing—I think that it is positive. Like me, he is a Fife MSP; he wants Dundee university to survive and thrive. It supports a lot of our constituents and a lot of young people in the areas that we represent, so I am absolutely committed to working with the management team to support the university to have the future that will see it thrive.
We have also had really positive engagement with the trade unions, and I am sure that the committee will engage with them and listen to their views, because it is really important that the management team listens to staff and students throughout the process. As the committee has heard in recent months, that has been a challenge.
The financial support that you have indicated is not in question, is it?
No.
It will be provided to the university, no matter what happens.
I have announced the financial support for the university, but I have also set out, in response to the convener, that the SFC is preparing conditions for funding that will support it to do just that. The conditions are important, given that this is public money. I do not think that any MSP at the committee this morning would expect public money to flow out the door without the Government attaching conditions to it, so that advice is coming to me.
However, you are fully confident that the university will be able to meet those conditions and that, therefore, the finance is not in question.
I would expect the university to be able to meet those conditions, yes.
John Mason has a question.
In a sense, my concern is the opposite of the convener’s, because I wonder whether the SFC is doing what the Government wants. It seems that the university is drifting somewhat. There is no permanent principal in place. Is the SFC not guilty of being a bit hands-off?
The permanent principal appointment is challenging. Mr Gillespie left in December last year, so, to my mind, that process should have been undertaken long before now. However, that is not the position in which the university finds itself. I also direct the committee back to Pamela Gillies’s report, which addressed the issues around governance in the institution and the lack of a permanent leadership team. As I understand it, that remains the position in the university today. I am sure that the committee will want to put those issues to the current management team, but we expect the SFC to pursue them on behalf of ministers, and, since March, I have been engaging with the SFC on all these matters, along with Mr Dey—and now with Mr Macpherson, of course.
Is the SFC moving fast enough?
It is fair to say that I would have hoped that we would have been able to move more quickly. There have been other issues in relation to recent changes in the SFC, which we need to be mindful of, but we are here to support this institution. I think that you know that that is the Government’s position. We will continue to engage with the management team and with the SFC, which I will meet very shortly.
As I understand it, one of the conditions is that the university achieves wide buy-in to the recovery plan—that it is not something that is just imposed. What engagement has the cabinet secretary had with the trade unions about their view on the recovery plan?
I have had a lot of engagement with the trade unions. As the committee might be aware, I have done that deliberately over a number of months to ensure that we had a ready flow of information coming from the staff in relation to their experience of what was happening in the institution, because not knowing what is happening continues to cause an inordinate amount of stress to staff and students, and, as cabinet secretary, I am very mindful of that. That being said, the recovery plan does not belong to the Government; it belongs to Dundee university, so the university has to engage with staff and students, and it is a matter for the current management team to undertake that.
With regard to the conditions, I think that Ms Duncan-Glancy said that she understands that one of the conditions is that the university will engage with staff and students. I think that that was an ask from the SFC in the correspondence, but in relation to the conditions that the Government will attach directly to the funding, I have not yet been provided with that advice from the SFC. I suspect that I will hear more after this meeting.
Can you tell us anything just now about the sorts of conditions that will be attached to the funding? In response to my colleague Willie Rennie, the cabinet secretary made the point that, if money is flowing out from the Government to the institution, one might expect conditions to be attached to it. Can you indicate what any of those conditions might be?
I think that some of the asks were set out in correspondence from the SFC to the university directly, and I think that the committee received a copy of that letter back in August.
Are those the Government’s expectations or the SFC’s expectations, or are those one and the same?
The SFC obviously supports ministers, so you cannot imagine that there would be divergence in our views on these things. However, with regard to the conditions themselves, I have not yet received that information. I met with officials on this matter yesterday, and I am meeting with the SFC later today. I would have expected to receive the conditions perhaps sooner than I have. Dundee university management has been involved in a number of workshops, along with the SFC. I think that the committee heard evidence on that from Richard Maconachie. There have been three workshops, which have helped to inform some of the thinking behind the conditions, but the conditions have not yet been presented to me, so it would be remiss of me to suggest otherwise today.
That is fair enough. What sort of oversight does the cabinet secretary hope to have on the extent to which the conditions that are attached to the money are adhered to?
Oversight will be hugely important—this is public money—and there will be a role for the SFC in that regard and a role for ministers. We will have oversight of the public money and the conditions, but the university is independent, and we need to be careful about the interplay in relation to the section 25 agreement, which allows us to award money to the institution—or rather to provide it with financial assistance—because of the unique set of circumstances in which it found itself.
There are two points to make in that regard: first, that we have certainty in relation to the conditions and that the SFC will ensure, on behalf of ministers, that those are adhered to; and, secondly, that the institution itself has to run independently. In the future, that is where Dundee university needs to get to, and we have a contribution to make in relation to the public money that is being provided.
Forgive me, but, in that case, how conditional are the conditions?
Forgive me, I do not have the conditions in front of me.
I understand that, but, regardless of what they are, are you—
What they are is quite important—this is a bit hypothetical.
What they are is, of course, important, but so, too, is the mechanism for holding the university to account in relation to those conditions. Therefore, I am just curious how conditional they are.
I am curious, Ms Duncan-Glancy—I share your curiosity—but the conditions that are put forward by the SFC will be about providing reassurance in relation to public money but also with regard to what it is feasible for the university to deliver, so we have to be balanced in relation to the conditions. We are not going to ask the university to do things that are unreasonable, but this is about public money, so ministers need reassurance in that regard. I do not have the conditions in front of me, so I cannot give concrete details. Once we have the conditions, I need to engage with the university, and we need to engage through the SFC to that end.
Why are you waiting? You said that you expected the conditions before now, so where has the blockage been, and what have you done to speed the process up?
The SFC has been holding a number of workshops with the university, and I think that it is fair to say that that has taken longer than we would have expected, so there has been a bit of a challenge in that regard—
When did you expect to get the conditions?
I do not want to put an arbitrary date on it, but I think that we would have expected them some time before now. If we wind back the clock to the end of June and my announcement to the Parliament then, we were pretty clear about the announcement of funding and what it was going to provide for. We then had a pretty quick change of leadership team, with an interim leadership team being installed, and we subsequently engaged with the SFC over the summer period. We then had correspondence that the committee is aware of in relation to the SFC setting out requirements regarding what the university was proposing. We have had to work with the university on that, which has taken longer than we had originally anticipated, going back to my announcement in June.
Willie Rennie has a question, followed by Miles Briggs.
Do you have confidence in the new leadership of Dundee university?
Yes.
You do. The new court has been set up and there are new recruits to the court—
There are.
Are you satisfied with that as well?
09:45
It is fair to say that there continue to be issues in relation to the court, but that is a matter for the management team, and the university itself, to engage with.
The issues in relation to the court speak to the governance issues to which Pamela Gillies referred. That is for the committee to consider; it needs to be mindful of those aspects. Part of the challenge that Pamela Gillies spoke about was that the court was not working in the way that it should have done in order to provide challenge to decisions that were made previously. I am sure that the committee will want to explore those things, but I will, of course, explore them further with the SFC later to give me reassurance in that regard.
Richard Maconachie has been attending a number of court meetings with observer status for the SFC, so I am sure that I will engage with the SFC further on that this week.
What were the issues with the court?
I think that there were issues with membership. There were issues with trade union engagement as well, and issues with papers being shared late. That is off the top of my head, convener.
Okay—thank you. I bring in Miles Briggs, to be followed by Ross Greer.
Dundee university has, quite rightly, received a lot of attention from this committee, from the Scottish Funding Council and from ministers, but every institution with which I have met is reporting its financial vulnerability. How many of our institutions—both universities and colleges—have outlined, in the run-up to the budget discussions, that they are in a similar situation of financial vulnerability?
All our institutions are currently facing inordinate pressure; I was in front of the committee to discuss the issue earlier this year. There are pressures relating to changes in the United Kingdom Government’s approach to immigration, which has harmed some of our institutions. There are issues in relation to employer national insurance contributions—Universities Scotland put a figure of around £50 million on the cost to the sector in Scotland.
There are broader inflationary pressures that mean that staff wages have gone up, so things are more expensive. All those things are compounding factors, but the issues at Dundee university are unique and relate to the financial challenges that we have spoken about previously with regard to Pamela Gillies’s investigation, and governance issues. That is why the Government was able to use a section 25 order for Dundee university and not for other institutions.
On the point in relation to the budget, we will continue to engage with Universities Scotland in the run-up to the budget. I am mindful of the issues that Mr Briggs puts to me, because our institutions in Scotland are extremely precious and we want to continue to ensure that they are supported.
Do you have confidence that the Scottish Funding Council is looking at each institution’s situation and then bringing to you—
Yes, I do, because I have asked the SFC to undertake that work, and it is in train.
What changes do you think could be brought forward in order to make that information more publicly available, and available to this committee? One of my biggest concerns is that there was not an earlier opportunity for oversight at Dundee university, and—arguably—all other institutions have not moved forward in respect of the transparency and availability of accounts.
I share Mr Briggs’s concerns—the issues at Dundee university should have been known to Government long before they were. I reassure the committee that I have put those issues to the SFC. The Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill is currently a bill before Parliament, and members may want to consider the issues that it concerns more broadly in respect of the role of the SFC and the powers it may have as an organisation in the future.
That last point concerns exactly the question that I was about to ask. Other committee members are certainly considering whether the Dundee situation has raised issues that we could resolve by amending the bill in relation to the SFC’s functions. From the Government’s perspective, and from your experience of engaging with the process, have you found limitations in the role of the SFC? Have you wanted the SFC to do things and discovered that legislation as it currently stands makes that impossible? Have you identified potential amendments to the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill in relation to the role and functions of the SFC that the Government could lodge at stage 2?
I sat in the stage 1 debate, which Mr Macpherson was thrown into in his first week after being appointed as the Minister for Higher and Further Education. There are a lot of things happening in tertiary education, which Government needs to reflect on and respond to as a result of the stage 1 debate. I am not going to answer the specific points that Mr Greer made, but we are considering those things in the round. I cannot think of where there has been a legislative block to ministerial action in relation to what has happened at Dundee, but I think that there is a need for greater reassurance.
The issue is that these are independent and autonomous institutions, and we need to be mindful of the Office for National Statistics classification and what bringing any institution closer to Government might do to those institutions. In my view, it would be extremely dangerous if that were to take place; I am sure that Professor Seaton and others will have a view on that when the committee hears from them shortly.
We need to be careful about the role of Government and the role of our independent institutions, but we also need reassurance. That is the point that Mr Briggs was pursuing, and I am in firm agreement with it. We have been raising these issues with the SFC, and the outcome of the Gillies review gives us some pause for thought about how there can be better transparency with regard to some of the financial issues that arose at Dundee university.
On that point, there was reporting that the Scottish Government had paid Deloitte £900,000 to look at the financial health of Dundee university. Was the reporting correct that Deloitte did not even see the recovery plan before it was rejected?
I saw the reports at the time and, like you, I shared some of the concerns. As I understand it, at that point, the SFC had undertaken to work with Deloitte but Deloitte had not, at that point, undertaken to look at the plan, because the plan was not acceptable to the SFC. That was dealt with in correspondence. The requirements from the SFC were sent back to Dundee, and it was my understanding that Deloitte was then to look at the updated plan.
Almost £1 million seems like a lot of money for expertise to be brought in and not to have even a cursory look at a plan—
But Deloitte will have to look at the plan when it is agreed. Of course, the plan is not for ministers to sign off; it is for the court to agree to. I think that the court—to go back to Mr Rennie’s line of questioning in that regard—is very important in that respect.
However, I agree with Mr Ross’s observations on the optics of that, and I will continue to pursue those issues with the SFC when I meet with it shortly.
Thank you very much. You have been very generous with that additional time on an issue in which the committee is clearly interested, and it will help us with our deliberations later this morning. I thank you and your officials for your evidence today.
09:51 Meeting suspended.
10:08 On resuming—
Air ais
AttendanceAir adhart
University of Dundee