Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I would like to follow on from what Jamie Halcro Johnston was saying about cultural regeneration as a tool to regenerate our town centres, villages and other areas across Scotland.

As you will be aware, I have already gone on at length about the fact that Renfrewshire Council has invested in Paisley, in particular in the town hall, the library and the museum, all of which are on the High Street, in order to try to create footfall in that area. There is also another issue, which is the fact that we have smaller venues—people looking to perform in a major venue will not go to Paisley town hall—and I note that, in your discussion with Jamie Halcro Johnston, you mentioned funding for smaller venues.

The Bungalow music venue, which was previously the Bungalow bar, has an interesting history. In the 1970s, it had all the major punk bands, because Glasgow City Council banned punk. For once, Renfrewshire Council thought that it was a good idea to make some money and encourage people to come to the town centre. How would venues such as that, which are smaller and of significance to the local area, go about engaging with Government in relation to funding? To be fair to the Government, it backed such venues during the Covid period, but they are struggling. They are doing well to get by, but there are still issues that mean that it is a bit of a struggle at times.

The Bungalow is quite interesting as it is a community investment company, not a for-profit organisation, so it ticks all the boxes with regard to the Government’s idea of investing in the future of culture.

I will move on to a different issue. One idea, which just about everyone who gave us evidence brought up, is for the Government to create a cross-portfolio fund, which would encourage organisations to look at things in a cross-portfolio way, too. The Scottish Library and Information Council gave a name to it: a culture and wellbeing fund. However, it could be broader than that. What are your thoughts on creating something along those lines?

Good morning. It is nice to see you all. I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with something that the convener said, which, as you will know if you have watched any of the committee’s proceedings, is quite unusual.

That brings me to my final question. The bill has a broad definition of “restraint”. Will that cause problems? Should there be more focus on what restraint is? I will tell you some of the things that have been said to us, because we have to ask questions. We are told that holding a child’s hand to cross the road, or using a hoist or moving equipment for children with complex needs, could be taken for restraint. If the bill becomes primary legislation it will be the law, so how do we get a definition that everyone is comfortable with? How do we make sure that teachers are comfortable and know what they are doing and that everyone knows—for want of a better term—what the rules of engagement are?

I would like to go down a similar route to the one that I took earlier and ask about the broad definition of restraint in the bill. As you all know, this is primary legislation. If it becomes law, teachers and everyone else will have to abide by it.

The bill defines restraint as

“anything done by a member of the staff of an education provider with the intention of restricting the physical movement of a child or young person”.

That captures a lot of things. A member of staff might be trying to help a child or young person as in the example that we heard earlier of a child who is about to run on to a road. Using a hoist or other equipment for a child who has complex healthcare needs could also fall under the definition of restraint, as could the basic standard physical care of a child who has complex needs.

Clearly, work needs to be done on the definition, because it cannot be so broad as that provided for in the bill when you are dealing with such issues.

I totally agree with that. The problem is that that definition is in the bill. We are having the opposite argument to the argument that we often have in here about stuff being put into guidance. Surely you have to admit that work must be done on the definition.

That brings me to some of Kate Sanger’s evidence. Suzi Martin already knows about this because I have cried on her shoulder about it with regard to my two autistic grandchildren. You brought up how you deal with it on a one-to-one basis with the teachers. It is about basic humanity. I have seen my daughter in these situations, where the two children are absolutely screaming the place down and she just talks to them quietly and deals with it. Surely, in reality teachers also do that because, as you say, it is the human thing to do.

Does anyone else have anything to add?

I know that everybody else wants to say something, but I have an addendum to what I have asked. Let us look at it from the point of view of a lawyer. What if, after the bill becomes law, there is an incident and a parent ends up saying, “That was over the top. I’m going to go to a lawyer”? If the definition is that broad, all kinds of things could happen when the law is tested in court. It is quite concerning. I am sorry; I am just gibbering now. Nicola Killean, did you want to add something?

It was not in connection with the convener, right enough.

I am at a different stage of the parenthood malarkey from the convener, because I am a grandparent now, but my experience was the same as the convener’s: the kids get a sniffle and the school is on the phone to you. I find it difficult to think that restraint and seclusion are happening and going unnoticed. I am shocked, because my daughter complains about how often the school is on the phone and sending kids home. Suzi, is this connected with the lack of data that you mentioned? You said that it is an invisible problem. How would you get the data that you talked about, to deal with the issue?